Decisions

E.D. Va. August 18, 2026 Third country: None identified in the order. The respondents stated that they expected to remove him to Honduras.

The petition, filed by the petitioner without a lawyer, contained “very little background information,” so the court relied on the respondents’ account. He had been removed to Honduras in 2011 and 2022 without claiming fear. On 23 May 2026 immigration officers took him into custody near Salisbury, Maryland, and reinstated the 2011 removal order; “Petitioner claimed fear of removal to Honduras.” He was referred for a reasonable fear interview on 15 July 2026. On 11 August 2026 an immigration judge took testimony and “concurred with the Department of Homeland Security’s determination that Petitioner’s fear of returning to his home country was not credible.” The court recorded that “Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1), no administrative appeal is available.” On custody, the court held that “because Petitioner is detained pursuant to § 1231 and a reinstated order of removal, he is not entitled to a bond hearing,” and that he “is not entitled to ‘any neutral custody determination’ as he suggests.” It treated the reinstated order as starting a new removal period: “Petitioner has only been detained on the reinstated order of removal since May 23, 2026, which is less than three months, and far less than the presumptively reasonable six-month period.” It stated that it “will not consider Petitioner’s assertions concerning the foreseeability of removal until after the six-month removal period has elapsed.” The petitioner relied on decisions concerning people re-detained for removal to a third country, including one in which removal to Mexico was enjoined. The court held that those decisions “are factually distinguishable from the instant case and are therefore inapposite.” The respondents told the court that “upon the conclusion of this habeas proceeding or the vacatur of the no movement order, Respondents should be able to promptly effectuate Petitioner’s final order of removal to his native Honduras.”

Bond hearing Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Reinstated removal orders Reasonable fear Self-represented petitioner Transfer out of district

Caution Not a third-country removal case. The facts are the respondents’ account, adopted because the petition gave little background. The negative reasonable fear determination was made by the immigration judge after the petition was filed and was not under review in this case. The court declined to consider whether removal is reasonably foreseeable until the six-month period has run, so the denial does not decide that question. With the no-transfer order vacated, the respondents said they expected to remove him promptly to Honduras. The copy is a scanned image with a machine-read text layer; quotations were checked against the page images.

C.D. Cal. February 26, 2026 2026 WL 855153

The boilerplate notice of changed circumstances did not justify revoking supervision; the court ordered immediate release and enjoined removal to Mexico or any third country and transfer out of the district.

Redetention Notice Withholding of removal Transfer out of district

Caution Temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on a preliminary record; the government stated it had no opposition argument to present; a final judgment in the same case is recorded for August 24, 2026 and was not supplied.

S.D.N.Y. August 26, 2025 798 F. Supp. 3d 400

The government gave no notice of revocation and no interview before re-detaining a man released in 2018, violating its own regulations and due process; release was ordered, and transfer after filing did not defeat jurisdiction.

Redetention Notice Informal interview Jurisdiction 1252(g) Transfer out of district

Caution Granted in part. The court's description of Westley v. Harper as reaching the merits of the section 241.4(l) claim is in tension with the project's earlier note that Westley was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the brief directs that neither characterisation be published until the Westley opinion itself is read.

S.D. Fla. August 8, 2025 2025 WL 2280485; 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153228 Third country: Guatemala

The emergency motion was denied: section 241.4(l)(2) required no notice or interview and both were in fact given, the Zadvydas claim was premature, and the regulatory stay barred removal to Mexico only.

Redetention Informal interview Notice Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) CAT deferral Third-country designation Jurisdiction 1252(g) Transfer out of district Bond hearing

Caution The brief records that this decision resolves the project's ledger claim 10 against the version previously carried: the motion was denied, and no appellate stay is supported, only the district court's interim order of June 12, 2025 staying transfer and removal. The decision splits from Grigorian, Zhu, Ceesay and Torres on whether section 241.4(l)(1) process attaches to an (l)(2) revocation, and from Gonzalez v. Noem and Zhu on jurisdiction to restrain a transfer.

N.D. Cal. July 14, 2025 2025 WL 1940179

A man released on bond in 2013 and detained at a scheduled ICE interview must be released immediately and may not be re-detained without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.

Redetention Notice Transfer out of district

Caution Ex parte temporary restraining order on a preliminary record, with the government not heard; it expired July 25, 2025 and the file contains no later order; the decretal language contains no removal bar and omits the transfer bar the petitioner requested in the alternative; the nature of the 2019 conviction is not in the record.

D.N.J. June 24, 2025 Third country: Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Honduras during the removal period that began in December 2022 (Guatemala and the Dominican Republic declined; Honduras did not respond). Canada, Guatemala and Honduras after re-detention, by requests of 12 May 2025; each had refused by the hearing of 9 June 2025.

On 15 December 2022 an immigration judge ordered the petitioner removed but granted withholding of removal to Mexico, the only country of which he is a citizen. During the 90-day removal period ICE asked Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Honduras to accept him; Guatemala and the Dominican Republic declined and Honduras never responded, and he was released on an order of supervision on 15 March 2023. On 28 March 2025 ICE re-detained him at a regularly scheduled check-in in Newark; the respondents alleged that revocation was warranted because he “failed to provide written travel document requests or acceptance letters from alternate countries to facilitate his removal.” His petition was filed on 2 April 2025 while he was in transit to Texas and ICE had not told his lawyers where he was. The court applied the unknown custodian exception, finding that “his custodian was, for all practical purposes, unknown at the time of filing. This not only deprived Petitioner of meaningful access to counsel and the courts, but also rendered any attempt to seek habeas relief during transit impossible if the Court applied the district of confinement and immediate custodian rules.” The court rejected the argument that a challenge before six months of detention is premature, noting that “a detainee might be able to show that he is barred from returning to his country of origin and that no other country is willing to accept him.” It recorded that ICE made no inquiry to any country between March 2023 and the re-detention, and that “Respondents offer no explanation for the lack of any efforts whatsoever to remove Petitioner during this two-year period of time.” ICE did not ask Canada, Guatemala and Honduras until 12 May 2025; Guatemala replied that it had “not received instructions about accepting migrants from other nationalities,” and by the 9 June 2025 hearing all three had refused. ICE conceded that “Petitioner’s removal is not, at present, imminent.” The court also considered evidence that third-country removal of people granted withholding is rare, finding that “the data nevertheless supports the general inference that removal for this particular class of detainees is substantially more difficult.” It held that the petitioner “has sufficiently established that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable and that his detention has exceeded the ‘period reasonably necessary to secure [his] removal,’” overcoming the presumption for his 164-day detention. It rejected as lacking credibility a danger argument first raised at the hearing, and removed a location monitoring condition from the proposed release order.

Redetention Revocation of supervision Order of supervision Withholding of removal Third-country removal Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Burden of proof Travel documents Transfer out of district Access to counsel Habeas jurisdiction

Caution The release order was entered on 9 June 2025 (ECF No. 23) after a ruling on the record; this opinion of 24 June 2025 gives the written reasons. The court released the petitioner on his detention claim and declined to address his claims about the revocation of supervised release and the commencement of removal proceedings. The account of his transfer to Texas rests on email exchanges whose authenticity the respondents did not dispute.