Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aramis Palacios Frion petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for immediate release from the California City Immigration Processing Center, where he was detained under a final removal order. He argued that fourteen months in custody had become unconstitutionally prolonged because removal was not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The warden opposed release on the ground that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorized continued detention. The case was decided by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in the Eastern District of California on October 6, 2026, in No. 1:26-cv-05328 (VC).
The court found that Palacios Frion was ordered removed to Cuba around April 28, 1995, and that the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal on October 2, 1995, making the order final. He nevertheless remained in the United States. ICE took him into custody on August 4, 2025, following an arrest for burglary, criminal mischief, and grand theft; the court noted that neither party said whether those charges produced convictions. Records also reflected earlier convictions, including controlled-substance possession and armed robbery of a dwelling in 2001.
Despite more than fourteen months of detention, the government had not removed him. Palacios Frion said he had received no travel document and no evidence that Cuba would accept him, and described the government's only removal step as asking him to sign paperwork for removal to Mexico. The court characterized the release ruling as uncomfortable given his criminal record, but required by law.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that the government ordinarily must execute removal during a 90-day removal period, when detention is mandatory. After that period, detention rests on § 1231(a)(6), which permits continued detention or supervised release rather than requiring custody. Under Zadvydas v. Davis, detention is presumptively reasonable for up to six months. Beyond that point, a noncitizen who gives good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future shifts the burden to the government to rebut that showing with evidence; failure to rebut requires release.
The six-month threshold was easily satisfied because Palacios Frion had been detained for fourteen months. The court called his initial showing on foreseeable removal a close call and said he had not offered much. Liberally construing his pro se arguments, however, it found just enough to shift the burden: his removal order had been final for more than thirty years, his current detention had lasted over fourteen months, and he reported neither a Cuban travel document nor evidence of Cuba's acceptance. The request that he sign Mexico-removal paperwork also supported his showing; citing Arias Garcia, the court noted repeated findings that Cuban nationals facing involuntary removal to Mexico met their initial Zadvydas burden where Mexico's standing agreement appeared conditioned on the noncitizen's consent.
The warden's three-page response supplied no rebuttal evidence, analysis, or citations, instead asserting that Palacios Frion had not shown removal was unlikely. Because the government did not rebut his showing, the court granted the petition. It ordered release on appropriate supervision conditions under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.5, but stayed the order for 14 days so respondents could explore returning him to local law-enforcement custody. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Palacios Frion and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Detention beyond six months is not automatically unlawful, but a sufficient showing that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future shifts the evidentiary burden to the government under Zadvydas.
- The court treated thirty years without removal, fourteen months of current detention, and the absence of evidence of Cuban acceptance as just enough to satisfy the petitioner's initial burden when his pro se arguments were liberally construed.
- A bare assertion that removal remains foreseeable did not rebut the petitioner's showing because the warden offered no supporting evidence.
- Release was ordered with appropriate supervision conditions, not as an unconditional discharge from all legal obligations.
- The 14-day stay allowed respondents to explore a transfer to local law-enforcement custody and did not change the judgment granting habeas relief.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Zadvydas's burden-shifting framework to an exceptionally long-final removal order and a current detention well beyond six months. Its decisive point is evidentiary: even though the court viewed the petitioner's initial showing as thin and the question as close, the government could not prevail without evidence that removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The ruling also distinguishes release from immigration detention from freedom from other custody or supervision. It requires appropriate conditions of supervision and temporarily stays implementation to permit consideration of local criminal custody, while leaving the granted habeas judgment intact.