Reported / Citable
Background
Tinatin Kurdobadze, an immigrant held at the El Valle Detention Facility in Willacy County, Texas, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging her continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Although subject to a final order of removal, she argued that her actual removal was not reasonably foreseeable and that prolonged detention under those circumstances was constitutionally impermissible under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
The Government moved to dismiss the petition. A U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) advising that the motion to dismiss be denied, the habeas petition be granted, and that Kurdobadze be released subject to supervision under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.5. The court gave the parties until June 3, 2026 to file objections to the R&R, and none were filed.
The Court’s Holding
Because no objections were filed, District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Finding none, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations in full. The Government’s motion to dismiss was denied, and Kurdobadze’s habeas petition was granted.
The court ordered Respondent to release Kurdobadze from ICE custody by no later than June 9, 2026, subject to supervision in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.5. The order was designated final and appealable, and the case was closed.
Key Takeaways
- Under Zadvydas v. Davis, indefinite post-removal-order detention is constitutionally suspect when removal is not reasonably foreseeable; a detainee may seek release via habeas corpus in that circumstance.
- When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s R&R, the district court reviews only for clear error on the face of the record before adopting the recommendation.
- Release under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.5 is conditional — the detainee remains subject to supervision rather than being unconditionally freed.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates how Zadvydas continues to operate as a constitutional check on prolonged immigration detention. Where the government cannot demonstrate a realistic prospect of removal within the presumptively reasonable six-month period, courts retain authority through habeas proceedings to order release under supervision.
For immigration practitioners, the case is a reminder that a final order of removal does not automatically justify indefinite detention, and that failure to challenge a magistrate’s R&R — even in a government-opposed habeas matter — can result in an unappealed, immediately operative release order.