The court held the petitioner was not subject to mandatory detention, his theft charge having been dismissed on completion of diversion, and that re-detaining him and revoking his order of supervision without a pre-deprivation hearing violated procedural due process. It ordered immediate release and entered a limited permanent injunction requiring seven days\u2019 notice and a bond hearing before any re-detention, written notice and reopened proceedings before any third-country removal, and barring removal to Mexico outright.
Caution Unpublished slip copy. A final decision on the parties\u2019 consent to a magistrate judge, not a recommendation, so no district-judge adoption was required. No subsequent history appears as of 7 September 2026. The court resolved the case on procedural due process and did not adjudicate the grounds concerning flight risk or conditions of detention, did not apply the substantive due process standards it set out, and did not reach an indefinite-detention analysis. The printed text contains an apparent drafting error describing removal to a country other than Cuba, which is language from a cited case and not this petitioner, and an inconsistent docket reference to the screening notice.
Redetention Pre-deprivation hearing Due process Third-country designation Notice Withholding Credible fear
The court's own text
Read in full from a Westlaw printout supplied by the administrator. The opinion is a work of the United States government; Westlaw editorial matter is not reproduced.
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.