Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Danilo Orestes Ramirez Frias, a Cuban national proceeding without counsel, filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his re-detention by immigration authorities. Immigration records submitted by respondents show he was paroled into the United States in October 2009, ordered removed in September 2012, and removed to Mexico on July 7, 2025, under a third-country arrangement. He re-entered at an unknown time and place. On April 21, 2026, immigration authorities encountered him at the Palm Beach County Jail after an arrest for burglary, and a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order was issued that day. The acknowledgment box, dated May 21, 2026, notes that he refused to sign. He was released from the jail into immigration custody on May 16, 2026, and has been detained continuously since. The execution portion of the accompanying warrant of removal was not completed.
Petitioner alleged that he received no pre-deprivation hearing or notice of the basis for detention, and he invoked the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and related regulations. He filed the petition on August 11, 2026. Respondents did not answer despite a warning that silence would be treated as non-opposition. On September 2, 2026, the magistrate judge recommended granting the petition on statutory grounds with a bond hearing within fourteen days. On September 9, respondents filed objections attributing the lapse to internal docketing and calendaring errors and attaching immigration records. The court gave petitioner fourteen days to reply, warning that the objections would otherwise be considered in addressing the petition, and he did not reply. The court treated the verified petition as an affidavit but noted that it does not say whether petitioner was under supervision, what charges he faced in Palm Beach, or whether he has convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge first exercised discretion to excuse respondents' late filing. The judge vacated the September 2 findings and recommendations by order and treated the objections as respondents' response to the petition. The court reminded respondents of their duty to respond on time and observed that the delay wasted limited judicial resources. The vacatur is an order and not a merits ruling.
On the merits, the court recommends denying the petition because petitioner is mandatorily detained under a reinstated removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Relying on Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, the court explained that a noncitizen subject to a reinstated order may seek only withholding of removal, and only if he fears return to the country of removal. Petitioner made no such claim, and the immigration records showed no pending applications. A noncitizen in that position is detained under § 1231. The court therefore recommends entering judgment for respondents and closing the case. It does not separately analyze petitioner's due process or § 1226 theories and resolves the matter on the reinstatement ground.
These are recommendations and not a final judgment. The findings go to the assigned District Judge, and either party may file objections within fourteen days, with any response due seven days after service. Failure to object may waive appellate rights. Until the district judge acts, the petition remains pending and no judgment has been entered.
Key Takeaways
- A magistrate judge recommended denying a § 2241 petition because the detainee is held under a reinstated removal order, which the court treated as detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231.
- The government's failure to answer a habeas petition did not automatically produce relief, because the court excused the late filing and vacated its earlier recommendation to grant.
- The only relief the court identified for a person under a reinstated order was withholding of removal, and the record showed no such claim.
- The order is a recommendation awaiting district judge review, so timely objections could still change the outcome.
Why It Matters
The order applies Johnson v. Guzman Chavez to a person who was removed to a third country, returned, and was detained after a local arrest. It treats reinstatement under § 1231(a)(5) as dispositive of a detention challenge that the court had earlier recommended resolving with a bond hearing. The reversal shows how much the outcome turned on the government's response and the immigration record.
The ruling is an unpublished district-level recommendation with no precedential weight. It does not analyze the constitutional due process arguments in detail and does not address whether prolonged detention could later be challenged.