Reported / Citable
Background
Santiago Balderas-Morrones, a noncitizen subject to a final order of removal, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Western District of Texas challenging his continued detention by federal immigration authorities. A final order of removal had been entered against him, but his removal had not been effectuated within a reasonable period, leaving him in prolonged immigration custody.
United States Magistrate Judge Kelly G. Stephenson issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the extended detention violated Petitioner’s due process rights under the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and recommending that he be released. Federal Respondents — including Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, and others — filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner filed a notification stating he had no objections.
Because objections were filed by Respondents, District Judge Fred Biery conducted a de novo review of the entire record, including the parties’ briefings and arguments presented at an evidentiary hearing, before ruling on the petition.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Biery accepted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in full and granted the habeas petition in part. The Court concluded that Respondents’ objections lacked merit and that Petitioner’s prolonged post-final-order detention violated his due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis. Under Zadvydas, once a removal order becomes final, the government ordinarily has a six-month presumptively reasonable detention period, after which continued detention is unlawful absent a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Court ordered Respondents to release Balderas-Morrones from custody no later than June 18, 2026, under conditions of supervision substantially similar to those of his previous Order of Supervision. The government was further directed to release him to a public place, notify his counsel of the exact time and location of release at least two hours in advance, and file a status report confirming the release by June 19, 2026.
The petition was denied in all other respects, and the case was closed.
Key Takeaways
- Zadvydas v. Davis remains a firm constitutional check on indefinite immigration detention: once removal is not reasonably foreseeable, continued custody violates due process and courts will order release.
- Federal objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation trigger mandatory de novo district court review, but conclusory or meritless objections will not alter the outcome.
- Courts can impose specific, enforceable release conditions — including supervision terms, notification requirements, and status-report deadlines — when granting habeas relief in immigration detention cases.
- Release under Zadvydas does not cancel the underlying order of removal; the petitioner remains subject to removal if the government later secures the ability to effectuate it.
Why It Matters
This decision is a straightforward application of Zadvydas in the current enforcement climate, where expanded immigration detention has increased the number of noncitizens held long after final removal orders without actual deportation occurring. It signals that district courts in the Fifth Circuit — historically a more enforcement-friendly jurisdiction — will still enforce the constitutional limits on post-order detention when the statutory and factual prerequisites are met.
For practitioners, the case illustrates the procedural mechanics of immigration habeas litigation in the Western District of Texas, including the role of magistrate judge recommendations, the consequences of filing objections (triggering de novo review), and the specificity of relief courts may order — down to the hour of release notification — when the government has unlawfully prolonged a detainee’s custody.