The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LEONEL AMILCAR GOMEZ- No. 3:26-cv-02330-BTM-DEB
CABRERA,
12
Petitioner, ORDER DENYING AMENDED
13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
v. CORPUS
14
JEREMY CASEY, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Leonel Amilcar Gomez Cabrera’s amended
2 petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
3 A. Background
4 Petitioner, a native of Honduras, was ordered removed in 2008—and he was
5 removed. But in January 2025, Petitioner was detained by immigration officials in the
6 interior of the United States. Immigration officials reinstated Petitioner’s 2008 removal
7 order. Petitioner sought withholding of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) denied
8 Petitioner’s application in June 2025. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration
9 Appeals (BIA). In February 2026, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.
10 Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Ninth Circuit in February 2026.
11 Petitioner claims that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable, and thus that he is
12 entitled to be released under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The Government
13 contends that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), but
14 the Government does not oppose a bond hearing.
15 B. Discussion
16 The Court rejects Petitioner’s reliance on Zadvydas. The Ninth Circuit has already
17 rejected the application of Zadvydas to this situation, that is, where a noncitizen is
18 appealing to the Ninth Circuit and the Government is not yet trying to execute the
19 removal order. Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008). Zadvydas
20 applies where the Government is not able to execute a final order of removal. Id. at 1063
21 (“Removal was not reasonably foreseeable in Zadvydas because no country would accept
22 the deportees, or the United States lacked an extradition treaty with their receiving
23 countries.”). Petitioner here, in contrast, “has been found removable by both the IJ and
24 the BIA, but has sought judicial relief from that removal order, thereby delaying his
25 deportation.” Id. at 1064. Petitioner “foreseeably remains capable of being removed --
26 even if it has not yet finally been determined that he should be removed,” and thus
27 Zadvydas is inapplicable. Id. at 1065; accord G.P. v. Garland, 103 F.4th 898 (1st Cir.
28
1 | 2024) (distinguishing Zadvydas in this context); Castaneda v. Perry, 95 F.4th 750 (4th
2 | Cir. 2024) (same); Martinez v. Larose, 968 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2020).
3 The Court agrees with Petitioner that a bond hearing is not required by statute.
4 | Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 526 (2021) (“We conclude that §1231, not
5 | §1226, governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal, meaning
6 | those aliens are not entitled to a bond hearing while they pursue withholding of
7 | removal.”). However, Petitioner could pursue a claim for a bond hearing based on the
8 | length of his detention. But he has not done so. The Court will permit Petitioner to file
9 | an amended petition to assert alternative claims for relief.
10 C. Conclusion
11 For the reasons stated, the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
12 | No later than June 19, 2026, Petitioner may file an amended petition seeking alternative
13 | relief.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 | Dated: June 3, 2026 _
Honowble Barry Ted Moskowi
V7 United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28