These are the decisions in the register tagged with this issue. A decision often answers more than one question, so the same case may appear under more than one heading. Show the whole register instead.
Alvarez Guerra v. Blanche
Amended habeas petition granted in part and denied in part without prejudice. The government is enjoined from removing the petitioner to a third country without adequate notice of intent to do so and an opportunity to seek to reopen his immigration court proceedings to seek fear-based relief. Claims against continued detention and for a custody review denied without prejudice; motion for a temporary restraining order denied as moot; case closed.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.