Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Alexandra Napoles Montada, a noncitizen detainee held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. The court described him as a former lawful permanent resident who lost that status following extremely serious criminal activity. ICE took him into custody on December 31, 2025, and he was issued a final removal order on February 18, 2026. The petition was docketed as ECF No. 1 in Case No. 1:26-cv-05749-DJC-CSK.
Because repatriation to his country of origin, Cuba, was not possible, ICE was pursuing third-country removal to Mexico. ICE advised that if Montada cooperated with removal to Mexico under his removal order, removal could be facilitated within three to four days even without travel documents. The court recorded, however, that Montada was not cooperating with removal. Those representations framed the central dispute: whether his continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 remained tied to a removal that was reasonably foreseeable.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that the case was materially indistinguishable from its prior decisions in Garcia v. Warden, Central Valley Annex, and Prado v. Warden, California City Immigration Processing Center. Those cases concerned Cuban nationals with final removal orders detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 for over six months while the government sought removal to Mexico despite their non-consent. Resolving Montada's case on the same basis, the court concluded that his removal was not reasonably foreseeable and that he was entitled to relief.
The November 6, 2026 order granted the habeas petition as to Ground One only. It directed respondents to immediately release Montada from custody under reasonable terms of supervision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.5, and it enjoined and restrained them from re-arresting or re-detaining him without a change in circumstances warranting re-detention. In a footnote, the court declined to address the remaining grounds for relief in the interests of judicial economy, leaving those grounds undecided rather than rejected on the merits.
The clerk was directed to serve the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility with a copy of the order, close the case, and enter judgment for Montada, and the order expressly resolved all pending motions. The practical disposition therefore combined immediate release, supervision, protection against re-detention absent changed circumstances, and a judgment for the petitioner, resting on the court's foreseeability determination and its stated alignment with Garcia and Prado.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief on Ground One because it concluded that Montada's removal to Mexico was not reasonably foreseeable.
- ICE's representation that removal could occur within three to four days with cooperation did not change the result, given the court's comparison with Garcia and Prado and Montada's non-cooperation.
- Release was ordered immediately, but under reasonable terms of supervision authorized by 8 C.F.R. § 241.5.
- Respondents are enjoined from re-arresting or re-detaining Montada without a change in circumstances that warrants re-detention.
- The court left the petition's remaining grounds undecided for judicial economy and directed entry of judgment for Montada and closure of the case.
Why It Matters
The order applies the court's established approach to prolonged post-removal-order detention of Cuban nationals facing proposed third-country removal to Mexico. It shows that a government estimate of rapid removal conditioned on the detainee's cooperation did not defeat the conclusion that removal was not reasonably foreseeable where the detainee was not cooperating. The relief was carefully structured: Montada obtained release and judgment but remained subject to reasonable supervision, and the injunction permitted renewed detention if circumstances changed.
The decision also marks the limits of the ruling. The court resolved only Ground One and expressly left the other grounds unaddressed, and its reasoning was incorporated through identified prior decisions rather than elaborated at length in this order. The operative findings and release conditions therefore carry the weight of the judgment.