801 F.Supp.3d 689
S.D. Tex.2025Background
- Villanueva, a Mexican national, petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his re-detention following an Order of Supervision.
- He was released in 2017 under an Order of Supervision with conditions and has remained in the Houston area.
- ICE arrested him again in July 2025 and re-detained him while attempting to find a third country for removal.
- Villanueva alleges due process and regulatory violations, including failure to follow revocation procedures and notice requirements.
- The government moved for summary judgment; the court denied it on several claims and granted the habeas petition, ordering release within hours and setting conditions for future notices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government can re-detain under a purported revocation without following rules | Villanueva argues revocation was not lawfully issued or noticed | ICE relied on a discretionary revocation and detains under its general authority | Summary judgment denied; due process violations found |
| Whether the government complied with 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(1)(1) regarding notice/interview | Regulatory notice and initial informal interview were not provided | Regulations not addressed in detail by Scroggins declaration | Summary judgment denied; due process violation established (preliminary relief granted) |
| Whether Villanueva’s removal to a third country was properly noticed | Notice of intended third-country removal not provided or sufficient | No country identified as willing to accept; notice not triggered | Claim not ripe; not proven a due-process violation at this stage, but relief contingent on future removal notice |
| Whether continued detention is unconstitutional under Zadvydas | Detention not reasonably foreseeable for removal | Detention permissible under statute and policy; six-month presumptive period applies | Detention not reasonably foreseeable; due-process violation; petition granted; release ordered |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review detention versus the discretionary revocation | Jurisdiction to challenge detention exists notwithstanding §1252(g) | Limited review on discretionary revocation but detention challenges are reviewable | Court has jurisdiction to review detention and due-process claims; discretionary revocation review barred to extent of revocation validity, not detention |
Key Cases Cited
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. (2003)) (review of detention authority under § 2241 for removal proceedings)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. (2001)) (detention limited to reasonably necessary to effect removal; six-month presumptively reasonable period)
- Caceres v. United States, 440 U.S. 741 (U.S. (1979)) (due process requires compliance with governing regulations and procedures)
- Gulf States Mfrs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 579 F.2d 1298 (5th Cir. 1978) (agency must follow its own regulations; failure renders decision invalid)
- Bonitto v. Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enf't, 547 F. Supp. 2d 747 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (due process for failure to follow immigration regulations may warrant release)