Reported / Citable
Background
Juan Carlos Sanchez Rodriguez, a Cuban national, was subject to a final removal order and released in April 2009 under an Order of Supervision. He then lived openly in the United States for more than 16 years and substantially complied with his supervision conditions, including routine check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
ICE arrested Sanchez Rodriguez again in December 2025 and detained him pending removal. He sought habeas relief, arguing that the government had improperly revoked his supervision and that his continued detention was unlawful because his removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The district court stayed his removal or transfer while the petition was pending.
The Court’s Holding
In a report and recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over Sanchez Rodriguez’s challenge to indefinite post-removal-order detention. The judge determined that the statutory 90-day removal period began and expired long ago and was not restarted or tolled by the later judicial stay because Sanchez Rodriguez was not seeking judicial review of his removal order.
The magistrate judge further concluded that the government had not shown a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. ICE had identified no third country willing to accept Sanchez Rodriguez, had no pending third-country removal request, had not obtained travel documents, and reported no progress after stating that it planned to nominate him for removal to Mexico. The judge therefore recommended granting the petition in part and releasing Sanchez Rodriguez under conditions substantially similar to his prior Order of Supervision. The judge declined to decide his separate procedural-due-process claim and recommended denying attorney’s fees and all other relief.
Key Takeaways
- Re-detention after revocation of an Order of Supervision does not restart a removal period that expired years earlier.
- Government assertions that third-country removal is imminent are insufficient without evidence that a country is likely to accept the detainee or that removal arrangements are progressing.
- The recommended remedy for detention violating Zadvydas is release under supervision, while the government retains authority to enforce the removal order.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies Zadvydas to a noncitizen whom ICE re-detained many years after releasing him under supervision. It emphasizes that a policy favoring third-country removals, without concrete evidence of an accepting country or meaningful logistical progress, does not make removal reasonably foreseeable.
The report also rejects the government’s attempt to treat a stay entered in the habeas proceeding as restarting or pausing the long-expired statutory removal period. Because this is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the proposed release remains subject to the district judge’s review and adoption.