Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nelson Izquierdo Mata, a citizen of Cuba, petitioned the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued immigration detention at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility. The order states that he was arrested in January 2026 on drug-related charges and that his detention since March 28, 2026 has run longer than six months. It does not describe his immigration history or any removal order, and it relies on a declaration filed by Respondents for the facts about their removal efforts.
On October 19, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the petition be granted and that Petitioner be released immediately. Respondent filed timely objections on October 25, 2026. As 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) requires, the district judge reviewed the case de novo, including the objections, and signed the order on October 26, 2026. It was entered on the docket the next day. Respondents' principal position was that they were pursuing removal to Mexico as a third country.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition. It found that Petitioner's detention since March 28, 2026 had exceeded the six months referenced in 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1), and it agreed with the magistrate judge that Respondents had not shown they were likely to remove him, a Cuban citizen, in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents said they were pursuing third-country removal to Mexico, but the court found they had not explained how that could be accomplished without Petitioner's consent. It cited another decision of the same court, Cruz v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, on that point.
The court acknowledged Petitioner's criminal record but concluded that Respondents appeared to have taken no serious action to remove him or to explain their intentions. Because removal was not shown to be reasonably foreseeable, the court said it had no choice but to find that he could no longer be detained and must be released on appropriate conditions of supervision. A footnote observed that Respondents have repeated the Mexico-removal assertion in numerous cases despite the court's earlier rulings, which the court said effectively amounts to an admission that they have no practical plans for removal.
The decretal paragraphs adopt the findings, grant the petition, direct Respondents to release Petitioner immediately, direct the Clerk to serve a copy on the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, and close the case. A stray 'OR' appears at the end of the release paragraph, but nothing in the order makes release conditional. The order does not set out the supervision conditions.
Key Takeaways
- When immigration detention has continued beyond six months, this court expected Respondents to show that removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and general assertions of effort were not enough.
- Saying that third-country removal to Mexico is being pursued does not carry that showing unless Respondents explain how removal could happen without the detainee's consent.
- A criminal record, including drug-related charges, did not by itself justify continued detention where removal was not shown to be foreseeable. The remedy was release on appropriate conditions of supervision.
- The court reviewed the magistrate judge's recommendation de novo, considered the government's objections, and still adopted it in full.
- The order resolves this petition and closes the case. It does not decide whether Respondents may lawfully pursue removal in the future, and it does not specify the supervision conditions.
Why It Matters
This is a district court habeas order, not a published appellate opinion, so it is persuasive only and does not bind other courts. Its value lies in showing how one judge in the Eastern District of California applies the six-month benchmark in 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1). It also shows how the court treats a recurring government argument that removal to Mexico is being pursued.
The footnote is the most notable feature. The court says Respondents have raised the Mexico-removal theory repeatedly despite its earlier rulings, and it treats that pattern as effectively conceding that there are no practical removal plans. Detainees and counsel in similar cases may cite the order for that point, but the analysis rests on the record before this court, and the order does not describe the underlying removal order or the details of Respondents' declaration.