Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Felipe Rodas Urrugutia, a Guatemalan citizen represented by counsel, was ordered removed under an expedited removal order issued December 7, 2018, and was removed on December 14, 2018. He re-entered in 2021 and told border officials he feared returning. Immigration records show he was served with a notice reinstating the prior order with a reasonable fear determination. On September 21, 2021, he was released from ICE custody on an Order of Supervision. The court noted a discrepancy in the 2021 re-entry dates but found it immaterial. On July 8, 2026, he appeared for a routine ICE check-in and was re-detained.
He filed a verified petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 24, 2026, alleging that his continued detention violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Respondents argued that even if ICE had not complied with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), the remedy should be limited to release on the same supervision order. Petitioner argued that respondents' failure to produce evidence of compliance required his immediate release. The court allowed respondents to file the notice of revocation and an interview record late and gave both sides time to respond. Separately, an immigration judge found on August 24, 2026, that petitioner had not shown a credible fear of persecution or torture in Guatemala.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge treated the case as a challenge to re-detention after release on supervision, not an initial post-removal-order detention like the one in Zadvydas. The expedited removal order became final on December 7, 2018, and the 90-day removal period has expired. The Notice of Revocation states that petitioner violated his Order of Supervision through a January 19, 2023 misdemeanor DUI conviction. Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1), a person who violates release conditions may be returned to custody and detained for an additional six months to effect removal. Because petitioner had been detained less than six months, the court found the detention lawful.
On due process, section 241.13(i)(3) requires notice of the reasons for revocation and a prompt informal interview. The record shows an interview on July 8, 2026, the day of re-detention, where petitioner gave an oral response and offered no written statement or documents. Petitioner objected that the Notice of Revocation was undated and unsigned. The court noted that he did not dispute the interview or deny the statement attributed to him. It also observed that section 241.13(i)(2) limits which officials may revoke release, while a revocation for violating supervision conditions under (i)(1) has no comparable requirement. It therefore found the missing signature inconsequential and found no due process violation.
The court recommended that the petition be denied and that the Clerk enter judgment for respondents and close the case. This is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, not a final judgment. Objections were due within seven days of the October 20, 2026 filing, and failure to object may waive appellate rights.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen released on an Order of Supervision may be returned to custody for up to an additional six months if he violates a release condition, and a criminal conviction can serve as that violation.
- In this recommendation, a same-day informal interview after re-detention satisfied both section 241.13(i)(3) and due process, where the person was told the reasons for revocation and could respond.
- The court treated an undated, unsigned revocation notice as harmless in a violation-based revocation, particularly because petitioner did not dispute the interview or the statement attributed to him.
- The court distinguished Zadvydas because the case concerned re-detention after supervised release, not the initial detention authority following a final removal order.
- The decision is a magistrate judge's recommendation, so it has no final effect unless the district judge adopts it.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the regulatory framework for revoking supervised release of noncitizens with final removal orders. It reads section 241.13(i)(1) to permit re-detention for a condition violation without a showing of changed circumstances, and it ties the lawfulness of detention to the six-month window. It follows other district courts, including Nguyen v. Hyde and Escalante v. Noem, in separating re-detention after supervised release from initial post-order detention.
Its reach is limited. It is a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, resolving the dispute on the revocation record and the single DUI violation it identifies. It does not address what happens once the six-month period runs, and the district judge has not yet ruled on whether to adopt it.