Reported / Citable
Background
Santiago Balderas-Morrones, a Mexican citizen and U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident since 2002, was arrested in 2007 on a federal drug conspiracy charge and sentenced to five years of probation in 2010. ICE promptly initiated removal proceedings. After a final removal hearing in September 2013, an Immigration Judge ordered him removed to Mexico but simultaneously granted deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding he faced a likelihood of torture if returned. That deferral barred direct removal to Mexico, and Balderas-Morrones was placed on an Order of Supervision, which he complied with for more than a decade.
In October 2025, ICE revoked his supervised release and detained him at the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, Texas, citing plans to remove him to a third country. Over the following months, ICE made limited outreach to potential receiving countries. Honduras and Guatemala both declined, stating they do not accept non-nationals. As of the June 2, 2026 evidentiary hearing, the government acknowledged it had made no active third-country removal request and could not identify any similarly situated individual who had recently been removed to a third country.
Balderas-Morrones filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 5, 2026, arguing that his continued detention — by then approaching eight months, with a final removal order more than twelve years old — violated his due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The government opposed release, contending he had not met his burden and that ongoing State Department diplomatic efforts made removal reasonably foreseeable.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Kelly G. Stephenson recommended that the District Court grant the habeas petition in part and order Balderas-Morrones released under conditions substantially similar to his prior Order of Supervision. Applying the Zadvydas framework, the magistrate found that the petitioner carried his initial burden of showing “good reason to believe” there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future: he produced undisputed proof of his CAT deferral (barring removal to Mexico) and demonstrated that a decade of government effort had yielded no willing third country. Both factors — a grant of deferral or withholding of removal and the absence of any third-country assurances — have been treated as sufficient by multiple courts within the Western District of Texas.
The burden then shifted to the government to rebut that showing with sufficient evidence, and the magistrate found it failed to do so. The government offered no live testimony, declined to present additional evidence at the hearing, and conceded on proffer that no country had accepted the petitioner and that ICE was not actively seeking removal to any specific third country. Vague references to ongoing State Department diplomatic efforts were insufficient to overcome the record of eight months of detention and twelve-plus years of fruitless removal proceedings.
The magistrate declined to reach petitioner’s separate procedural due process claim, finding the substantive Zadvydas claim fully dispositive. Any relief not addressed in the recommendation was denied.
Key Takeaways
- Under Zadvydas, detention beyond six months following a final removal order is presumptively unreasonable; a detainee who proves a CAT deferral and the absence of any willing receiving country satisfies the “good reason” burden.
- Once a detainee meets that burden, the government must respond with concrete evidence of progress — not merely assertions of diplomatic activity; conceding at hearing that no active third-country request is pending is fatal to the government’s position.
- Courts in the Western District of Texas have applied this framework consistently: proof of deferral or withholding plus lack of third-country assurances suffices to shift the burden to the government, following Vargas v. Bondi, Trejo v. Warden of ERO El Paso, and Shengelia v. Ortega.
- Because this is a Report and Recommendation, it is subject to objection within seven days and requires final adoption by the district judge before it becomes a binding order.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates a growing body of habeas litigation in the Western District of Texas challenging prolonged ICE detention of individuals whose removal is blocked by CAT deferral orders. As the government has stepped up enforcement and detention of long-term residents, federal courts have increasingly been called upon to police the constitutional limits on indefinite detention, and this case follows a clear trend in which generalized claims of future diplomatic progress have not been enough to justify continued confinement when concrete removal efforts have stalled.
For practitioners, the case reinforces that the combination of a CAT-based deferral and the government’s failure to produce a specific, credible removal pathway will typically satisfy a petitioner’s Zadvydas burden in this district, placing the evidentiary weight squarely on the government. Attorneys representing similarly situated detainees — long-term LPRs with removal orders deferred to their home country and no third-country arrangement in place — have a strong template for habeas relief.