RENE HERRERA WILSON v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — of Return at 2.) (Id.) Those removal efforts were 1 unsuccessful, and in 1998
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee who had been held for over 20 years with unsuccessful removal efforts. The court granted the petition in part, ordering the petitioner's release because the government failed to show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, while denying the remaining claims as moot or unnecessary to address.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted in part, ordering release of Petitioner from immigration detention.“Petitioner’s present detention is unlawful and he must be released.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Zadvydas v. Davis, which requires the government to show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future to justify continued detention. The order recites that the government's efforts to find a third country were unsuccessful and that they had no additional information, satisfying the condition for release. The court's decision to release the petitioner despite his criminal history is consistent with the legal standard that criminal history does not override the statutory limit on detention when removal is not reasonably foreseeable. |
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus denied in part regarding the claim that re-detention violated regulations/APA and the claim regarding third-country removal procedures.“Because the Court grants the Petition on this ground, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s claim that Respondents violated the applicable regulations. The Court also declines to address Petitioner’s third claim requiring Respondents to follow certain procedures prior to any third country removal.” | agree with court The court declined to reach the other claims because it granted the petition on the primary ground of unlawful detention under Zadvydas. This is a standard judicial practice to avoid unnecessary constitutional or statutory questions when a case can be resolved on narrower grounds. The court noted that any 'surprise removal' would likely present due process issues, acknowledging the validity of the concern without needing to rule on it formally. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standard from Zadvydas. It correctly identifies the government's burden and finds it unmet based on the status report. The decision to deny the other claims as unnecessary is appropriate. However, the order is brief and relies heavily on the court's prior experience with similar cases ('This Court has addressed similar situations in other cases'), which may lack the detailed factual analysis typically seen in published opinions, though this is common for district court orders in this area.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENE HERRERA WILSON, Case No.: 26cv2729 DMS (DEB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; et 15 al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 19 Respondents filed a response to the Petition, and Petitioner filed traverse. After reviewing 20 the parties’ briefs, the Court requested Respondents file a status report setting out the status 21 of their efforts to remove Petitioner. In their status report filed on August 20, 2026, 22 Respondents had no additional information. Petitioner now requests the Court order his 23 release. 24 Petitioner Rene Herrera Wilson came to the United States in 1994 as a Cuban 25 refugee. (Pet. at 2.) Since his arrival, Petitioner has been convicted of a variety of crimes 26 and served multiple sentences in state court. (Decl. of Jason Cole in Supp. of Return at 2.) 27 As a result of those crimes, the Government initiated removal proceedings against 28 Petitioner, and in 1997 ordered him removed to Cuba. (Id.) Those removal efforts were 1 unsuccessful, and in 1998 Petitioner was released from immigration custody. (Id.) 2 Petitioner was returned to immigration custody multiple times over the next 20-plus years 3 as a result of additional criminal convictions in state court, but efforts to remove Petitioner 4 were again unsuccessful and he was repeatedly released. (Id.) Petitioner’s most recent 5 stint in immigration detention began on April 16, 2026. (Id. at 4.) Respondents have been 6 trying to find a third country willing to accept Petitioner upon his removal, but to date, 7 those efforts have been unsuccessful. (Id.) 8 On April 29, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case seeking release from custody, 9 among other things. Petitioner raises three claims. First, he argues his re-detention violated 10 the applicable regulations, and therefore violated his due process rights and the 11 Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Second, Petitioner asserts his continued re- 12 detention violates Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and 8 U.S.C. ¶ 1231. Third, 13 Petitioner argues he cannot be removed to a third country with adequate notice and an 14 opportunity to be heard. Respondents dispute they violated the applicable regulations in 15 re-detaining Petitioner. They also assert they have rebutted any showing that there is no 16 significant likelihood Petitioner will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. 17 Respondents also state they will provide Petitioner with due process if they are able to find 18 a third country willing to accept him. 19 This Court has addressed similar situations in other cases, and as in those cases, the 20 evidence here does not satisfy Respondents’ burden to show there is a significant likelihood 21 Petitioner will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thus, despite Petitioner’s 22 lengthy and serious criminal history, which warrants his removal from the United States, 23 Petitioner’s present detention is unlawful and he must be released.1 24 25 26 1 Because the Court grants the Petition on this ground, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s claim that Respondents violated the applicable regulations. The Court also declines to address Petitioner’s third 27 claim requiring Respondents to follow certain procedures prior to any third country removal. The Court notes, however, that any kind of “surprise removal” like the one Petitioner fears would likely “’present 28 1 In accordance with this Order, the parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report on 2 || or before September 8, 2026, confirming Petitioner has been released. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: August 31, 2026 ‘ Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7g 10, 2025) (quoting Esmail v. Noem, No. 25-cv-08325-WLH-RAO, 2025 WL 3030589, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025)).