Perdomo Reynaud: D.N.J. Section 1231 Habeas Relief and Deferred Action

Perdomo Reynaud v. Lyons, 2026 WL 1674229 (D.N.J. June 10, 2026), analyzed post-removal-order detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and Zadvydas. The petitioner had been detained for more than six months and held an unrevoked grant of deferred action based on a bona fide U-visa determination.

A Section 1231 detention case

The court rejected the government’s argument that habeas review was premature. The presumptively reasonable six-month period ran from the beginning of Section 1231 detention, and the petition was filed after that period. The court then asked whether removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Deferred action and foreseeability

USCIS granted deferred action in January 2026, and the government did not claim that USCIS had revoked it. Drawing on decisions treating an active deferred-action grant as a formal decision not to pursue removal for the authorized period, the court found that the grant supplied good reason to doubt near-term removal.

Why the government’s proof fell short

A pending post-order custody review did not show when or how removal could occur. Nor did the petitioner’s preexisting Honduran passport establish that ICE had recently obtained travel documentation or scheduled removal. The government supplied no itinerary, foreign-government communication, removal date, or other concrete timeline.

Relief and conditions

The court granted habeas relief and kept its immediate-release order in force. It barred renewed Section 1231 detention on the same order unless deferred action was revoked with notice and an opportunity to be heard, or the government proved flight risk or danger under the conditions the court specified. The court retained jurisdiction over renewed detention.

The decision’s boundary

This ruling joined deferred action to a particular Zadvydas record; it did not hold that every pending U-visa petition defeats detention. The operative facts were an actual, unrevoked grant, detention beyond six months, and the absence of competent evidence that removal was realistically approaching.