Decisions

D. Nev. April 7, 2026 Third country: None identified in the order.

Mr. Alvarez Guerra was born and raised in Cuba and has no citizenship or lawful immigration status in any other country. He entered the United States on 21 June 2023 using the CBP One app and applied for residency in July 2024. He was arrested on 10 March 2025 and has been detained since. On 21 May 2025 an immigration judge denied asylum but granted withholding of removal from Cuba; the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his asylum appeal on 22 January 2026, when the removal order became final. The government argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), § 1252(a)(5) and § 1252(b)(9) barred review. Following Ibarra-Perez v. United States (9th Cir. 2025), the court held that § 1252(g) “does not divest this Court of jurisdiction over Petitioner’s request to prohibit his removal to a third country without sufficient notice and an opportunity to raise fear-based claims,” and called the argument that his only avenue was a petition for review in the court of appeals “patently false.” The government did not respond to the third-country claim. The court held that the petitioner “has a due process right to receive meaningful notice and opportunity to present a fear-based claim to an immigration judge before DHS deports him to a third country,” and granted that ground without reaching the claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. The parties agreed that the 90-day removal period would end on 22 April 2026, and the court held: “Because detention is mandatory during the removal period, Petitioner’s detention is currently lawful.” His claim that he had not received a custody review was premature for the same reason. The court denied release, declined to stay the case, and closed it so that he may file a new habeas case later.

Third-country removal Notice Due process Withholding of removal Reopened removal proceedings Jurisdiction 1252(g) Jurisdiction 1252(a)(5) Jurisdiction 1252(b)(9) Ripeness

Caution The order was signed on 7 April 2026 and entered on the docket, with the judgment, on 8 April 2026. The detention claims were denied without prejudice only because the removal period had not yet ended. No particular third country had been designated, and the order does not address diplomatic assurances.

N.D. Cal. October 10, 2025 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201666; 2025 WL 2899220 Third country: Jordan

Serious questions exist that the petitioner may not be detained without notice and a hearing before an immigration judge, or removed to a third country without notice and an opportunity to apply for fear-based relief.

Redetention Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Jurisdiction 1252(g) Jurisdiction 1252(a)(5) Jurisdiction 1252(b)(9)

Caution Preliminary injunction on a 'serious questions' showing, not a final merits ruling; issued by a magistrate judge, and the file does not state whether the parties consented; the supplied file is named for the July 26, 2025 temporary restraining order but contains the October 10, 2025 order.

N.D. Cal. August 6, 2025 2025 WL 2243616

Serious questions exist that due process bars detention or removal to any third country without notice and an opportunity to present a fear-based claim; sections 1252(g), (a)(5), (b)(9) and FARRA do not bar review.

Redetention Notice Third-country designation CAT deferral Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Jurisdiction 1252(g) Jurisdiction 1252(a)(5) Jurisdiction 1252(b)(9)

Caution Preliminary injunction on the 'serious questions' standard, converted from a temporary restraining order by consent; every merits finding is framed as a serious question and none is final; no third country is identified anywhere in the file, and the court did not identify the governing detention statute by number.

W.D. Wash. December 6, 2019 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210865; 2019 WL 6683512 Third country: Somalia

The government's position was not substantially justified, and the court awarded $36,720 in fees and $2,170 in expenses at $450 per hour under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Attorney fees Notice Third-country designation

Caution Fees were denied for the unsuccessful motion-to-enforce phase. The brief notes that a Fifth Circuit decision cited elsewhere in the collection holds the Act does not authorize fees for successful section 2241 motions, so fee recovery depends on the circuit.

W.D. Wash. June 20, 2019 409 F. Supp. 3d 998; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103569; 2019 WL 2548137 Third country: Somalia

DHS may designate a removal country outside removal proceedings, but designating Somalia without notice or an opportunity to be heard violated due process, so proceedings must be reopened before any removal there.

Redetention Notice Third-country designation Withholding of removal CAT deferral Jurisdiction 1252(a)(5) Bond hearing Prolonged detention (Zadvydas)

Caution The four-step notice procedure often attributed to this case comes from subsection D of the magistrate judge's report, which the district judge did not adopt; the court's statement that failing to advise of the right to apply for asylum or withholding is itself a due process violation is hedged as what Ninth Circuit case law 'suggests'; the court held detention was not indefinite under Zadvydas and granted only a bond hearing on that score. Any account presenting the case as forbidding administrative designation misstates it.