Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yacer Ciscal Morales, a Cuban national, was re-detained by immigration authorities in February 2026 while previously released under supervision. An immigration judge granted voluntary departure on May 27, but Morales did not depart by the June 26 deadline and no party appealed. The voluntary-departure order therefore became a final removal order.
Morales sought habeas relief, arguing among other things that removal was not reasonably foreseeable and that his detention violated due process, federal immigration law, the Convention Against Torture, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The government moved to dismiss and represented that it possessed valid Cuban travel documents and was ready to arrange removal.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the petition because Morales was still within the 90-day removal period governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). That period began when the order became final on June 27 and ran through September 25. Detention during that period was mandatory, so the court declined to extend the indefinite-detention analysis of Zadvydas to a custody period expressly limited to 90 days.
The court also declined to reach the third-country banishment claim because the government intended to return Morales to Cuba. It denied appointment of counsel, lifted the order barring transfer, entered judgment for the government, and closed the case.
Key Takeaways
- A voluntary-departure order can convert into a final removal order when the departure and appeal periods expire.
- Section 1231(a)(2) mandates detention during the initial 90-day removal period.
- Zadvydas concerns about potentially indefinite post-removal detention generally do not control during that defined period.
- Evidence of valid travel documents and planned removal can defeat a claim premised on removal to an unavailable or third country.
Why It Matters
Practitioners must calculate the removal period precisely before bringing a prolonged-detention challenge. The legal framework changes once an order becomes final, and a petition filed within the first 90 days faces the statutory command of mandatory custody.
The decision also highlights the importance of evidence about the actual destination and travel documents. A challenge based on indefinite or third-country removal may be premature when the government shows it can carry out removal to the person’s home country promptly.