Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pedro Apolo Almeida Hernandez, a Cuban citizen who entered the United States without inspection, was ordered removed to Cuba on April 4, 2023. Immigration authorities took him into custody on May 24, 2026, and were working to remove him to Mexico.
Proceeding pro se, Almeida Hernandez filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and sought immediate release, arguing that his continued detention was unconstitutional. The government moved for summary judgment, contending that he could not establish a claim under Zadvydas v. Davis because he had been detained for only about five months.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. It explained that detention for six months following a final removal order is presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas. Because Almeida Hernandez had been in post-removal-order custody for approximately five months, he had not been detained beyond that presumptively reasonable period and therefore had not shown a constitutional violation.
The court dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice as premature and denied the motion for immediate release. It stated that Almeida Hernandez could refile if he remained detained after six months, exhausted available administrative remedies, and could show that he had cooperated with immigration authorities in obtaining travel documents for his removal.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge to post-removal-order detention was premature when the petitioner had been detained for approximately five months.
- The six-month period recognized in Zadvydas is presumptively reasonable; detention within that period did not establish an actionable constitutional claim here.
- The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing a renewed petition if detention continued beyond six months and the stated exhaustion and cooperation requirements were satisfied.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the timing barrier facing noncitizens who challenge post-removal-order detention before six months have elapsed. Even where removal has not yet occurred, detention within the presumptively reasonable period generally will not support relief under Zadvydas.
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the ruling does not foreclose a later challenge if removal remains uncompleted and the petitioner satisfies the court’s stated prerequisites.