Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose De La Neuz Avila was paroled into the United States from Cuba in 1980 and ordered removed to Cuba in 2008. After his release under an order of supervision, federal immigration authorities revoked that supervision and detained him again on March 5, 2026, to carry out the removal order. A reviewing official rejected his challenge to the renewed detention after finding that he posed a danger to the community and that removal was imminent.
Cuba declined to accept De La Neuz Avila in April 2026. Authorities then sought to remove him to a third country, but he twice refused to sign a Notice of Third Country Removal and Warning for Failure to Depart. Mexico rejected him after the first refusal. While further removal efforts continued, he petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging unconstitutional prolonged detention under Zadvydas v. Davis and arbitrary and capricious agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the federal respondents’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment and dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice. It first held that De La Neuz Avila had not exhausted the available administrative process because he neither alleged nor showed that he submitted a written release request to the Headquarters Post-Order Detention Unit or obtained an administrative determination concerning the likelihood of removal.
The court also held that the detention did not violate Zadvydas. De La Neuz Avila conceded that he had not been detained beyond the six-month period considered presumptively reasonable, and his refusals to sign third-country removal notices independently supported extending the removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C). Finally, the court rejected his APA claim because habeas review provided an adequate judicial remedy, foreclosing review under 5 U.S.C. § 704.
Key Takeaways
- A post-removal-order detainee generally must complete the applicable administrative release-review process before pursuing relief under § 2241.
- Detention lasting less than the six-month presumptively reasonable period recognized in Zadvydas did not establish an actionable constitutional violation here.
- An alien’s refusal to cooperate with third-country removal efforts may extend the removal period, and an APA claim is unavailable when habeas corpus supplies an adequate remedy.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates two obstacles facing challenges to post-removal-order detention: failure to seek administrative release review and filing before the six-month benchmark has elapsed. It also shows that a detainee’s conduct obstructing removal can independently justify continued detention.
For practitioners, the ruling underscores the need to document exhaustion through the Headquarters Post-Order Detention Unit and to address any alleged noncooperation before seeking habeas relief. It also cautions against pairing a detention challenge with an APA claim when habeas review already offers an adequate remedy.