Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cecilia Salas Lopez received voluntary departure in 2003, appealed, and says she left for Mexico in 2004, supported by a consular receipt. She returned in 2015 and later pursued adjustment of status. ICE arrested her immediately after a September 2026 adjustment interview, despite her family’s statement that she carried proof of the earlier departure. She received no opportunity to contest custody before detention and no later individualized review.
Salas Lopez sought habeas relief and a temporary restraining order. She argued that her departure executed the alternate removal order, making 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) the relevant detention statute. The government contended that she never departed and remained subject to an executable final order, placing detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Dena Coggins held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the old removal order remained executable. The Immigration and Nationality Act makes a petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals the exclusive route for reviewing a removal order. For purposes of the habeas case, the court therefore accepted the government’s position that § 1231(a) governed. But that jurisdictional limit did not prevent review of whether detention under that statute complied with due process.
Using the government’s own account, Salas Lopez had effectively remained on supervised release for 22 years because officials did not detain her during the statutory removal period. They also knew of her presence through her immigration applications and appointments. The court concluded that, before revoking that implied release, respondents had to provide the procedural protections in 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13. Their failure to do so violated procedural due process.
The risk of error was particularly acute because the arresting officers detained Salas Lopez first and deferred consideration of her evidence that she had departed in 2004. The court explained that advance process exists to prevent precisely that sequence. In a footnote, it also observed—without resolving an unbriefed claim—that many courts have found detention at an appointment for lawful pursuit of immigration relief unlawful and that this arrest was likely unlawful on that additional ground.
The court granted the habeas petition and temporary restraining order and directed respondents to release Salas Lopez immediately. They could not add electronic monitoring or other restrictions unless a future custody hearing found them necessary, had to return her documents and possessions, and could not re-arrest or re-detain her without constitutional protections that include strict compliance with §§ 241.4 and 241.13. The court denied as moot her later request to supplement the record, entered judgment, and closed the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court could not adjudicate whether the 2004 removal order remained executable.
- It retained jurisdiction over the independent constitutional challenge to detention.
- On the government’s account, 22 years outside custody amounted to implied supervised release.
- Revoking that liberty required the advance procedures in §§ 241.4 and 241.13.
- The remedy was immediate release, return of possessions, and protection against re-detention without compliant process.
Why It Matters
The ruling separates two questions that immigration practitioners must plead carefully. A district court generally cannot use habeas jurisdiction to determine whether a removal order remains valid or executable, but it can review a detention challenge that is independent of the removal order. Framing the requested relief around custody procedures rather than invalidation of the order preserved jurisdiction here.
The implied-release analysis is also significant. The government’s failure to take custody during the removal period, followed by decades of liberty and repeated contact through immigration applications, carried procedural consequences even without a formal supervision document. Before ending that settled liberty, officials had to follow regulatory safeguards designed to test whether renewed detention was warranted.
The remedy was broader than a future bond hearing. Because respondents detained Salas Lopez without the required advance process, the court ordered immediate release and barred added conditions unless a later hearing justified them. Lawyers handling similar arrests should preserve proof of departure, government knowledge, prior appointments, and every attempt to present corrective documents before custody began.