Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Henso Manzo Rodriguez, a Cuban citizen and national, was ordered removed by an immigration judge in 1991. He had been in immigration custody since August 12, 2026, to effectuate his removal, and his total administrative detention exceeded six months when detention from prior years was included.
Rodriguez sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued post-removal-order detention violated the statutory and constitutional limits recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis. The government represented that Rodriguez could be removed to Mexico within 30 days if removal to Cuba could not be accomplished.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Under Zadvydas, detention following a final removal order is limited to the period reasonably necessary to accomplish removal, and detention beyond six months permits a detainee to seek release by showing good reason to believe that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The court held that Rodriguez failed to make that threshold showing because the record established that he could or would be removed imminently. His continued detention therefore did not violate the statutory or constitutional limitations recognized in Zadvydas, and he was not entitled to relief under § 2241. The court also denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Detention exceeding Zadvydas’s six-month presumptive period does not automatically entitle a detainee to release.
- The detainee must first show good reason to believe that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- The government’s evidence that Rodriguez could be removed to Mexico within 30 days defeated his threshold showing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that the six-month period identified in Zadvydas is a presumptive boundary, not a mandatory release deadline. A habeas petitioner challenging post-removal-order detention must present a basis for concluding that removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
Where the record supports imminent removal to an available destination country, continued detention may remain lawful even when the detainee’s cumulative periods of administrative custody exceed six months.