Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eduardo Alvarado Reyes, a pro se immigration detainee, states that he is a Cuban citizen who entered the United States in 1993 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1996. He was convicted in 2002 in the Middle District of Florida of possessing and concealing counterfeit federal reserve notes under 18 U.S.C. § 472. He asserts he was ordered removed to Cuba in September 2003. Respondents agree the order became final in 2003 and concede ICE released him on an order of supervision in 2004 after assessing that removal to Cuba was not reasonably foreseeable.
Reyes claims he complied with his release conditions, but that after ICE directed him to a check-in in October 2025 he was detained without a pre-deprivation hearing. Respondents say ICE re-detained him on October 25, 2025 to execute the removal order. Reyes further claims that in December 2025 he was served with a notice of removal to Mexico, a country not designated in his removal order, and that he refused to agree to go. He petitioned for habeas relief, alleging a Fifth Amendment due process violation. Respondents argued detention is authorized because he has not shown Mexico would refuse him or that removal is legally barred. They also argued an earlier Florida habeas petition barred this one, but that petition had been dismissed without prejudice so he could proceed in California.
The Court’s Holding
Applying the burden-shifting framework of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which the parties did not dispute governs, the court noted that post-order detention is presumptively reasonable for six months. After that, a detainee who gives good reason to believe removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future shifts the burden to the government to rebut. The court found Reyes met his initial burden: he was ordered removed over two decades ago, has been re-detained about a year, was first released because removal to Cuba could not be accomplished, and nothing shows the government is closer to removing him.
Respondents did not carry their burden as to Cuba or Mexico. They offered no evidence that removal to Cuba is likely, and removal to Mexico did not appear likely. The court rejected the argument that Reyes must show Mexico would refuse him. It cited Obando Vargas v. Blanche for the point that the government cannot detain someone for not agreeing to depart voluntarily to a country he is not from and has no legal obligation to enter, and Su v. Noem for the observation that third-country removal is exceedingly rare. It concluded that his detention had become unreasonably prolonged.
The petition was granted. Respondents must release Reyes immediately and give him a copy of the order. They are enjoined from re-detaining him unless there are material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker determines there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for petitioner and close the case. The court did not separately decide the due process claim.
Key Takeaways
- Under Zadvydas, detention after a final removal order is presumptively reasonable for six months, after which the government must rebut a detainee's good-reason showing that removal is unlikely.
- The court found the initial burden met through the passage of time, an earlier release because removal was not possible, and no sign of progress toward removal.
- A detainee need not prove a proposed third country would refuse him, and declining to agree to depart to a country he is not from does not justify continued detention.
- Release was paired with an injunction allowing re-detention only upon materially changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker's finding of likely removal.
- This is an unreported district court order resolving one petitioner's case on the record before it, so it is persuasive at most and not binding precedent.
Why It Matters
The order shows how Eastern District of California courts apply Zadvydas when ICE re-detains someone previously released under supervision because removal was not possible. Once the detainee makes an initial showing, the government must offer evidence that removal is actually likely, and a proposed third country alone does not suffice.
Its reach is limited. It is a short, unpublished order citing other district court decisions rather than appellate authority, and it decides only this petitioner's custody. The order does not resolve the due process claim or the legality of any third-country removal, and the government may seek re-detention if the stated conditions are met.