Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yordy Vazquez Llames, a native of Cuba, entered the United States on June 7, 2023, and was released on Cuban Humanitarian Parole with permission to remain until June 5, 2025. He obtained work authorization in January 2024, but it expired on the same date as his parole permission. On August 27, 2026, local police arrested him on a misdemeanor charge under Florida Statutes section 901.31 for failing to appear at a court hearing connected with a suspended-license offense. He was booked into Hernando County Jail, where ICE lodged an I-247 detainer. ICE arrested him on August 29, 2026, and the Department of Homeland Security transferred him to the Golden State Annex Facility in McFarland, California.
DHS also issued a Notice to Appear on August 29, charging Vazquez Llames as removable under Immigration and Nationality Act section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). His removal proceedings remained pending, and he was not subject to a final removal order. On October 5, 2026, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that his re-detention violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. He also moved for appointment of counsel. The government opposed the petition and TRO, contending that his detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2). After setting a briefing schedule, the court decided the habeas petition on the existing record because the respondents did not request a hearing or further briefing. The court issued its order on October 16, 2026; it was filed on October 19, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that section 2241 gave it jurisdiction because Vazquez Llames challenged the legality of his custody and sought an individualized bond hearing. It rejected any jurisdictional bar under 8 U.S.C. section 1252(g), explaining that no removal order was at issue and that the central question was his continued detention, not the executive's decision to commence proceedings, adjudicate a case, or execute a removal order.
On the merits, the court found that the government offered little rebuttal to the due-process claim, supplied no justification for the detention, and did not distinguish prior decisions rejecting its mandatory-detention position. The court therefore concluded that re-detaining Vazquez Llames without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. It nevertheless considered his recent failure-to-appear arrest relevant to the remedy. Relying on a prior case involving similar circumstances, the court selected a post-deprivation bond hearing rather than treating the constitutional violation as automatically requiring release.
The order granted the habeas petition in part, denied the motion to appoint counsel, and denied the TRO as moot. Unless Vazquez Llames consents to a later date, respondents must provide an individualized hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of service. The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger to the community to justify denying bond. If detention without bond is not warranted, the immigration judge should consider his financial circumstances and alternative release conditions. He must receive at least 72 hours' notice and may appear and be represented by counsel. The court explained that appointed counsel was not required in the interests of justice because it was granting habeas relief and ordering a substantive hearing. The Clerk was directed to serve the detention facility, close the case, and enter judgment for Vazquez Llames.
Key Takeaways
- Re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated Vazquez Llames's Fifth Amendment due-process rights on the record presented.
- The government's assertion that detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2) did not persuade the court, particularly because respondents offered no justification and did not distinguish adverse precedent.
- The remedy is an individualized post-deprivation bond hearing, not an unconditional release order.
- At that hearing, the government bears the burden of proving flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence to justify denial of bond.
- The court denied appointed counsel and the TRO as moot while directing entry of judgment for the petitioner and closure of the case.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a constitutional violation in the manner of re-detention from the appropriate remedy for that violation. Although the government did not justify the initial re-detention, the recent failure-to-appear arrest led the court to require a fresh assessment of danger and flight risk rather than simply order release. That assessment must occur promptly before an immigration judge under procedures that place the burden on the government.
The ruling also confirms that section 1252(g) did not prevent review of this ongoing-detention claim while removal proceedings remained pending. Its practical relief includes notice, appearance, and representation rights at the hearing, together with consideration of financial circumstances and alternatives to detention if bond is appropriate.