Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Raul Gonzalez Castillo, a native and citizen of Cuba, is subject to a final order of removal. According to the order, he was previously detained and then released under an Order of Supervision. He has a lengthy criminal history, which the court described as extensive and serious. On April 28, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement revoked his release and re-detained him, and he remained detained when the court ruled. Proceeding without counsel, he filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District of California raising several grounds for relief.
The government opposed the petition. It argued that the Department of Homeland Security had determined there was a significant likelihood Castillo would be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that he had not rebutted a presumption that his detention was lawful. The notice of revocation given to Castillo made two statements: that circumstances had changed so that removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that ICE was seeking a travel document for removal to Cuba or a third country.
The court applied 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), which governs revocation of release for a noncitizen with a final removal order who was released because removal was not foreseeable. Under § 241.13(i)(2), revocation is permitted if, on account of changed circumstances, the agency determines there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Following earlier Eastern District decisions, the court said it may not make the changed-circumstances finding in the first instance and that the burden is on ICE. Where ICE has made such a determination, the court reviews it in light of the § 241.13(f) factors, including the noncitizen's compliance history, the agency's removal efforts and their foreseeable results, and the State Department's views.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition as to Ground Four and ordered Castillo's release. It found the notice of revocation insufficient to show changed circumstances because it was vague and conclusory. The notice gave no information about what had changed or how that made removal significantly likely, and it did not address the § 241.13(f) factors. Saying that ICE is seeking a travel document or a third-country removal did not suffice without further proof of feasibility, such as a repatriation agreement, the receiving country's acceptance, or issued travel documents.
The court also found that the government's briefing did little to cure those gaps. Its assertion that DHS had determined removal was likely, and its reliance on a presumption of lawful detention, did not meet its burden, because it offered no specific evidence or argument showing changed circumstances. The court said it was concerned about Castillo's serious criminal conduct but concluded the government had not carried its burden.
The order directs respondents to release Castillo immediately. It bars them from imposing restrictions beyond those in place before the current detention unless a future pre-deprivation custody hearing finds them necessary. It enjoins re-arrest or re-detention without a change in circumstances warranting it, directs service on the detention facility, resolves all pending motions, and directs the clerk to close the case and enter judgment for Castillo. For judicial economy, the court declined to address the petition's other grounds.
Key Takeaways
- When ICE revokes release to carry out removal under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), the court treated it as ICE's burden to show changed circumstances and a significant likelihood of removal.
- A revocation notice that only repeats the regulatory standard and does not address the § 241.13(f) factors was held insufficient.
- A statement that ICE is seeking a travel document or third-country removal, without proof of an agreement, acceptance, or issued documents, did not show changed circumstances.
- Serious criminal history did not relieve the government of its burden, although the court expressly noted its concern about it.
- The ruling rested only on Ground Four, so the petition's other claims remain undecided.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court release order, so it carries no binding precedential weight. It applies and reinforces a line of Eastern District decisions requiring concrete evidence when ICE re-detains people previously released under orders of supervision. It does not resolve any due process or other constitutional claim.
The relief is specific to this case. Because the court enforced the government's burden rather than finding removal impossible, the injunction bars re-detention only absent a change in circumstances warranting it, so re-detention remains possible on a proper showing. The court left open whether any future custody hearing will impose additional conditions on Castillo.