Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gilberto Jose Sotelo Ayala challenged his renewed immigration detention through a federal habeas petition. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Mexico in 1998, and he was removed and later reentered several times. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released him under supervision in 2022, then detained him again in December 2025 after concluding that removal could be carried out. The government reinstated the earlier removal order.
Sotelo Ayala sought review in the Ninth Circuit after an immigration judge rejected his fear-based challenge to removal, and a temporary stay prevented removal while that case remained pending. In district court, he argued that he should be treated as detained before a final removal decision, that ICE revoked his supervised release without adequate process, and that continued detention violated the rule against potentially indefinite post-removal detention announced in Zadvydas v. Davis.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition. It held that detention was governed by the post-removal statute, 8 U.S.C. section 1231, because the 1998 removal order became administratively final when Sotelo Ayala waived appeal. His 2022 release did not erase that final order, and the government’s earlier litigation position did not bind it to a different statutory classification.
The court also rejected the procedural challenge to revocation of supervised release. The record showed that ICE gave written notice that release was being revoked because removal was considered likely and conducted an interview at which Sotelo Ayala could raise family hardship and fear of return. The applicable regulation permits renewed detention when changed circumstances create a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit stay did not by itself establish that removal was not reasonably foreseeable. Under Zadvydas, once post-removal detention extends beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period, the detainee must provide good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future; the government then must rebut that showing. Sotelo Ayala identified no obstacle other than the review proceeding and stay he sought. The court concluded that a temporary legal barrier of that kind did not show the practical impossibility or indefinite delay required for release.
Key Takeaways
- A decades-old removal order can remain administratively final despite later reentries, release under supervision, and subsequent reinstatement proceedings.
- Post-removal detention is generally analyzed under section 1231, not the pre-removal detention provisions, when an underlying order became final and no court vacated it.
- A pending petition for review and temporary stay of removal do not automatically satisfy the detainee’s initial burden under Zadvydas.
- A successful prolonged-detention claim needs evidence of a practical or legal obstacle suggesting removal will not occur in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- ICE’s revocation record matters: notice of the stated reason and a meaningful opportunity to respond are central to a procedural challenge.
Why It Matters
For California immigration practitioners, the decision distinguishes a temporary appellate stay from the open-ended detention Zadvydas forbids. Seeking judicial review may delay removal, but that delay alone may not establish entitlement to habeas relief. Counsel should develop evidence about travel documents, receiving-country cooperation, or other barriers rather than relying only on the existence of appellate proceedings.
The case also shows that determining which detention statute applies can turn on the history of the original removal order, not merely the government’s most recent custody action. Obtaining the old order, any appeal waiver, supervision documents, revocation notice, and interview record is therefore essential before framing a custody challenge.
Timing and proof should be reassessed as the appellate case develops. A detention claim that fails while review is moving normally may look different if proceedings become unusually prolonged or a new obstacle makes removal impracticable. Practitioners should preserve evidence of custody reviews and continually update the factual basis for foreseeability rather than treating the first habeas record as fixed.