Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anier Esvel Caceres Leon, a Cuban citizen proceeding without counsel, was paroled into the United States as a Cuban refugee on June 13, 2012, and became a lawful permanent resident retroactive to that date on July 17, 2023. On August 10, 2023, an immigration judge ordered him removed in absentia to Cuba, and a motion to reopen was denied on March 3, 2025. He was taken into immigration custody in January 2026 after an arrest on fraud and theft-related charges. ICE documents dated January 19 and 21, 2026 indicated an intent to remove him to Mexico, a third country. An immigration judge denied bond on February 5, 2026, finding him a danger to the community, and he remains held at the California City Immigration Processing Center.
His petition under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, received June 23, 2026, alleges that detention beyond the removal period under 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a) violates due process because removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that no travel documents or accepting third country have been identified. The court ordered respondent to address whether anything materially distinguished the case from earlier decisions of that court, including Aaron H. v. Chestnut and Eduardo V.M. v. Warden. Respondent answered that at about five and a half months petitioner remained within the six-month presumptively reasonable period recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis, had no prior post-removal detention, and had received a bond hearing. Petitioner replied that the United States has no repatriation agreement with Cuba and that no documentation shows Mexico will receive him.
The Court’s Holding
These are findings and recommendations by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire, referred to District Judge Troy L. Nunley, not a final order or judgment. She recommends granting the petition and ordering immediate release under the supervision conditions of 8 C.F.R. section 241.5, with return of petitioner's documents and possessions. She also recommends an injunction against re-arrest or re-detention absent a change in circumstances warranting it, a notice of compliance within three days of an order adopting the recommendations, and entry of judgment for petitioner and closing of the case. The objection period was shortened to three days from service, justified by the nature of the relief and the completeness of the briefing.
The findings reject respondent's argument that detention of under six months bars a Zadvydas claim. Citing Clark v. Martinez and district court decisions, they treat the six-month period as a presumption, not a prohibition on earlier claims, and add that detention exceeding nine months is no longer presumptively reasonable.
Even if the presumption applied, the findings conclude petitioner gave good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government did not execute the Cuba removal order for three years, and petitioner maintains Cuba is not accepting repatriations. Respondent represents it seeks removal to Mexico, but petitioner asserts there is no travel document, itinerary or evidence Mexico will receive him, and respondent did not dispute this or show it had procured or requested a travel document for either country. The January 2026 warrant and notice did not show foreseeable removal, so respondent failed to rebut, and continued detention is unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute. The prior bond denial did not alter the remedy.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendations are not operative until the district judge adopts them, so release and the injunction remain pending.
- The findings treat the six-month Zadvydas period as a rebuttable presumption that does not bar an earlier claim.
- Once a detainee gives good reason to doubt removal is likely, the government must respond with evidence, and a warrant and notice of third-country removal without a travel document did not suffice here.
- A bond denial based on dangerousness did not change the remedy of supervised release when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
- Respondent did not dispute petitioner's factual account, so a stronger government record could matter in other cases.
Why It Matters
The findings apply Zadvydas to a detainee with a years-old removal order and a possible third-country removal, and they require evidence of concrete progress toward removal rather than generalizations. They also follow this court's earlier decisions rather than treating the six-month mark as a threshold to relief.
The document is an unreported magistrate judge's recommendation with no precedential weight. It does not address the validity of the removal order or the procedures for third-country removal, and the district judge's ruling on any objections remains open.