Nunez Sanchez: Removal Must Be Reasonably Foreseeable

Introduction

This is a habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California. District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta resolved a fully briefed amended petition by granting immediate release. The sole question before the court was whether the government had rebutted the petitioner's showing that his removal was not reasonably foreseeable under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). No evidentiary hearing was held; the court decided on the briefs and the existing record.

Material Facts Treated as Uncontested

Eduardo Yoel Nunez Sanchez, a Cuban national, entered the United States in 2006 at age eighteen and resided in Florida for approximately twenty years. He received a 364-day sentence following a battery conviction arising from a 2025 altercation. ICE took him into custody on December 4, 2025, while he was serving that sentence. An immigration judge issued a final order of removal on January 9, 2026; petitioner waived appeal, making the order immediately final. On February 18, 2026, authorities notified him of intent to remove him to Mexico. He was subsequently transferred to ICE custody in California. At the time of decision, petitioner had been in immigration detention for close to eight months, with more than six months elapsed since the final removal order. The government did not contest that it was not actively pursuing removal to Cuba, and petitioner declined to consent to removal to Mexico.

Issue

Whether, after a Cuban national has been detained more than six months following a final removal order, the government's proof—consisting solely of a notice of intended removal to Mexico and statistical evidence of a standing U.S.-Mexico acceptance agreement—is sufficient to rebut the petitioner's Zadvydas showing that removal is not reasonably foreseeable.

Parties' Positions

Petitioner argued that removal to Cuba was not being pursued, and that removal to Mexico was speculative because the government offered nothing beyond a notice issued months earlier and presented no tangible removal plans. He further contended that Mexico's acceptance of Cuban nationals under the standing agreement appears conditioned on the noncitizen's consent, which he withheld.

Respondent maintained that removal to Mexico was reasonably foreseeable based on the served notice and a standing agreement under which Mexico had accepted over 6,000 Cuban nationals in fiscal years 2025 and 2026. Respondent asked the court to take judicial notice of that agreement and the associated statistics.

Governing Law

The court applied 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and the framework established in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Under Zadvydas, post-order detention is limited to the period reasonably necessary to accomplish removal, with a presumptive six-month ceiling. Once that threshold is crossed and the detainee provides good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the burden shifts to the government to respond with sufficient rebuttal evidence. The court also cited Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), for the statutory detention framework.

Reasoning

The court first confirmed that petitioner had crossed the six-month Zadvydas threshold and had satisfied his initial burden. It then evaluated whether the government's rebuttal was adequate. Relying on persuasive sister-court decisions including Arenado-Borges v. Bondi, Rodriguez-Fernandez v. Bondi, Olea Sanchez v. Bondi, and Ruiz-Acosta v. Central Valley Annex, the court concluded that the bare existence of a standing agreement, standing alone, says nothing about whether Mexico will accept this particular petitioner in the near term. The court emphasized that petitioner's refusal to consent to removal to Mexico cast further doubt on foreseeability, given that the standing agreement appears conditioned on individual consent. Because the government advanced no additional evidence or argument beyond the agreement's existence and the notice of removal, it failed to meet its rebuttal burden. The court explicitly noted that respondent acknowledged district courts have repeatedly rejected the bare-agreement argument in similar cases.

Exact Holding

The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is granted. Petitioner's removal is not reasonably foreseeable, and continued detention is not authorized by statute.

Exact Disposition and Conditions

The court ordered immediate release of Eduardo Yoel Nunez Sanchez under reasonable supervision terms pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.5. Respondents are enjoined and restrained from re-arresting or re-detaining petitioner absent a change in circumstances that would warrant re-detention. The case is closed with judgment entered for petitioner.

What the Decision Did Not Decide — Precedential Limits

The court explicitly declined to address the procedural safeguards petitioner requested regarding any potential future third-country removal. It noted in a footnote that a subsequent petition on that issue would likely not be viewed as second or successive, but made no ruling on the merits of that question. This is a slip opinion with only a Westlaw citation currently available; it carries no binding precedential weight beyond this district and this petitioner. The decision also does not resolve whether the Mexico-acceptance agreement is categorically insufficient in all circumstances, only that it was insufficient here without supplemental rebuttal evidence.