# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. Florida · July 6, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384185

## Case

- **Full name:** Carlos De Armas Cabrera v. Assistant Field Office Director, Krome North Service Processing Center, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Florida
- **Decided:** July 6, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384185

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 26-cv-21178-JB

CARLOS DE ARMAS CABRERA,

Petitioner,

v.

ASSISTANT FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,
KROME NORTH
SERVICE PROCESSING CENTER, et al.,

Respondents.
_____________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon pro se Petitioner Carlos De Armas
Cabrera’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”). ECF No. [1].
Respondents filed a Response in opposition to the Petition and Petitioner filed a reply.
ECF Nos. [8], [10]. The parties also submitted supplemental responses. ECF Nos.
[15], [16]. Upon due consideration of the parties’ submissions, the pertinent portions
of the record, and the applicable law, for the reasons explained below, the Petition is
GRANTED IN PART.
I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a Cuban citizen who arrived in the United States on October 20,
2004, through Key West, Florida. ECF No. [8-2] at 1. On October 21, 2004, Customs
and Border Protection (“CBP”) first encountered Petitioner and issued him a Notice
to Appear (“NTA”), charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under sections
212(a)(6(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as
“an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled” and thereby
initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner. ECF No. [8-3]. The NTA was later

canceled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). ECF No. [8-4] ¶9. CBP
then paroled Petitioner into the United States pursuant to INA § 212(d)(5) and
released him from custody. ECF Nos. [8-4] ¶ 10, [8-5]. On March 2, 2006, Petitioner
filed a Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,
which was retroactively approved to October 21, 2004, under the Cuban Adjustment
Act. ECF Nos. [8-4] ¶ ¶11−12, [8-6].

On January 10, 2017, Petitioner was charged with shooting at/into an occupied
vessel/aircraft/vehicle and criminal mischief of $1,000 or more and later sentenced to
one year community control, two years of probation, restitution and anger
management. ECF Nos. [8-4] ¶14, [8-7]. On May 15, 2025, following his arrest for
domestic battery, ICE encountered Petitioner at the Turner Guilford Knight
Correctional Center and DHS issued Petitioner another NTA charging him as
removable from the United States pursuant to sections 237(a)(2)(C) and

237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the INA. ECF Nos. [8-1], [8-4] ¶¶16, 19. On June 4, 2025,1 ICE
took custody of Petitioner. ECF Nos. [8-4] ¶ 18, [8-11] at 4. On July 1, 2025,
Petitioner had a master calendar hearing where he conceded the charges of removal
and the immigration judge found that he was removable. ECF No. [8-4] ¶20. On

1 In his Petition, Petitioner states that he has been in immigration custody since May
11, 2025. ECF No. [1]. However, Respondents claim that ICE encountered Petitioner
on May 11, 2025, and took him into custody on June 4, 2025. ECF No. [8] at 3.
August 14, 2025, Petitioner filed an application for relief from removal and on October
17, 2025, the immigration court denied his application and issued an order of
removal, directing that Petitioner be removed to Cuba. ECF Nos. [1-3] at 1, [8-4]

¶¶21−22, [8-12]. On October 30, 2025, Petitioner filed an appeal of the immigration
judge’s decision. ECF Nos. [1-3] at 4, [8-4] ¶23. Petitioner’s appeal remains pending.
On February 20, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition in which he asserts
two counts. ECF No. [1]. Count One alleges that he is the subject of prolonged and
indefinite detention in violation of due process and his removal to Cuba is not
reasonably foreseeable. Id. at 6. Count Two alleges that his continued detention is

arbitrary and a violation of due process. Id. Petitioner asks the Court to “grant a
writ of habeas corpus and order [his] immediate release from custody under
reasonable conditions of supervision.” Id. at 7. Alternatively, Petitioner requests that
“the Court order a meaningful bond hearing before an Immigration Judge where the
government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that [his] continued
detention is justified and that [his] removal is significantly likely in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” Id.

On February 26, 2026, Respondents filed their Response to the Petition. ECF
No. [8]. Respondents argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention,
pending removal, under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) based on his prior criminal history. Id. at
4–8. Respondents also argue that Petitioner’s due process claim under Zadvydas v.
Davis fails because his application for relief is still pending on appeal, therefore, the
order of removal is not administratively final. Id. at 9–10. Given the appeal,
Respondents argue that they have not had the opportunity to remove Petitioner and
therefore Petitioner cannot meet his burden under Zadvydas.
On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed his reply. ECF No. [10]. In the Reply,

Petitioner seeks to correct the record as to his criminal history, specifically noting
that the object involved in the incident was a rock “and not a lethal weapon.” Id.
Petitioner also argues that the pending appeal does not justify his prolonged
detention. Id.
On May 26, 2026, this Court ordered supplemental briefing as to the
applicability of Sopo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 825 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2016), to the Petition.

ECF No. [14]. On May 28, 2026, Respondents filed supplemental briefing arguing
that Sopo was inapplicable and that even if it applied, Petitioner’s detention would
still be constitutional. ECF No. [15]. On June 8, 2026, Petitioner submitted a sur-
reply in which he argues that his continued detention of more than a year warrants
judicial review and is approaching the outer bounds of what courts have found
constitutionally permissible. ECF No. [16].
II. ANALYSIS

District courts have the authority to grant writs of habeas corpus. See 28
U.S.C. § 2241(a). Habeas corpus is fundamentally “a remedy for unlawful executive
detention.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (citation omitted). A writ may
be issued to a petitioner who shows that he is being held in custody in violation of the
Constitution or federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Court’s jurisdiction
extends to challenges involving immigration detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
The parties do not dispute that Petitioner is being held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1226(c). See ECF Nos. [1], [8]. The dispute lies in whether his detention has been
unconstitutionally prolonged. The Fifth Amendment, which applies to aliens,
provides that “[n]o person shall be . . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V; Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693
(2001) (“[O]nce an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the
Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,

whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”). Thus,
aliens are entitled to due process of law in deportation proceedings. Demore v. Kim,
538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003).
Under section 1226(c), “‘[t]he Attorney General shall take into custody any
alien’ who falls into one of several enumerated categories involving criminal offenses
and terrorist activities.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)). “Section 1226(c) mandates detention during removal proceedings

for a limited class of deportable aliens–including those convicted of an aggravated
felony.” Demore, 538 U.S. 510 at 517–18.
In Demore v. Kim, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of
mandatory detention under § 1226(c). The Court relied on the data provided by the
Executive Office of Immigration Review, which reflected that section 1226(c)
detention lasted “roughly a month and a half in the vast majority of cases in which it
is invoked, and about five months in the minority of cases in which the alien chooses
to appeal.” Id. at 530. The Court concluded that a six-month detention under section
1226(c) was constitutional because “the Government may constitutionally detain

deportable aliens during the limited period necessary for their removal proceedings.”
Id. at 558–59. The Court explained that this brief and limited detention was
constitutional because, as a practical matter, it is a necessary aspect of the
deportation process. Id. at 523. In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy emphasized the
importance of a temporal limitation on pre-removal detention, stating that if an
alien's “continued detention became unreasonable or unjustified,” the alien could be

entitled to “an individualized determination as to his risk of flight and
dangerousness.” Id. at 532.
Subsequently, in Jennings v. Rodriguez, the Court considered whether section
1226 requires that aliens “be given a bond hearing every six months and that
detention beyond the initial 6–month period is permitted only if the Government
proves by clear and convincing evidence that further detention is justified.” 583 U.S.
at 292. Although the Court concluded that section 1226 does not impose a six-month

limitation on detention, it declined to consider whether prolonged pre-removal
detention becomes, at some point, unconstitutional. Id. at 311.
Since Jennings, courts in this Circuit have continued to employ a fact-based
analysis in determining whether the prolonged nature of pre-removal detention
pursuant to section 1226 necessitates a detention hearing. See Gabrius v. Dep't of
Homeland Sec., No. 24-22680-CIV, 2024 WL 5046042 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2024)
(finding that petitioner was entitled to a hearing where he was detained for thirty-
three months); Stephens v. Ripa, No. 1:22-CV-20110, 2022 WL 1110104 (S.D. Fla.
Feb. 18, 2022) (finding that petitioner was entitled to a pre-removal detention hearing

where he was detained for over two years), report and recommendation adopted in
part, rejected in part, No. 22-20110-CIV, 2022 WL 621596 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2022);
Rogers v. Ripa, No. 1:21-CV-24433-JLK, 2022 WL 708493 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2022),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:21-CV-24433-JLK, 2022 WL 574389 (S.D.
Fla. Feb. 25, 2022) (granting petition where petitioner had been in respondents’
custody for over one year); Warsame v. Meade, No. 20-CV-22401-CMA, 2020 WL

13551825, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2020) (granting petition where petitioner was
detained for nearly twelve months pending appeal); Hamilton v. Acosta, No. 20-
21318-CV, 2020 WL 3036782, at *3–6 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2020), report and
recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 3035350 (S.D. Fla. June 4, 2020) (conducting an
as-applied analysis to a constitutional challenge to pre-removal detention under
Section 1226).
Courts have looked to the multi-factor analysis found in the Eleventh Circuit’s

decision in Sopo (Sopo I) for guidance in determining if prolonged detention under
section 1226(c) does, in fact, violate an alien's right to procedural due process.2 See

2 Despite Sopo 1 being vacated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), courts within this Circuit continue to rely on it as
persuasive authority in determining whether prolonged pre-removal detention passes
constitutional muster. See e.g., Gabrius v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 24-22680-CIV,
2024 WL 5046042 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2024); Stephens v. Ripa, No. 22-CV-20110-JEM,
2022 WL 621596, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2022); Warsame v. Meade, No. 20-CV-22401-
CMA, 2020 WL 13551825, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2020).
Sopo v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 825 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2016), vacated, 890 F.3d 952 (11th
Cir. 2018). The Sopo factors include: (1) “the amount of time that the criminal alien
has been in detention without a bond hearing”; (2) “why the removal proceedings have

become protracted”; (3) “whether it will be possible to remove the criminal alien after
there is a final order of removal”; (4) “whether the alien's civil immigration detention
exceeds the time the alien spent in prison for the crime that rendered him removable”;
(5) “whether the facility for the civil immigration detention is meaningfully different
from a penal institution for criminal detention”; (6) “the total length of the detention”;
(7) “the foreseeability of proceedings concluding in the near future (or the likely

duration of future detention)”; (8) “the period of the detention compared to the
criminal sentence”; (9) “the promptness (or delay) of the immigration authorities or
the detainee”; and (10) “the likelihood that the proceedings will culminate in a final
removal order.” See Sopo, 825 F.3d at 1217–19 (quotation marks and citations
omitted). These factors are “not exhaustive” and courts “must consult the record and
balance the government’s interest in continued detention against the criminal alien’s
liberty interest.” Id. at 1218−1219.

In evaluating Petitioner’s circumstances, the undersigned finds that
Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged, and he is entitled to a
bond hearing. The first Sopo factor is how long the criminal alien has been in
detention without a bond hearing. Sopo, 890 F.3d at 1217. The Eleventh Circuit
noted that detention of a criminal alien without bond may often become unreasonable
by the one-year mark. Id. The Sopo court also explained that the need for a bond
inquiry is likely to arise in the six-month to one-year window, at which time a court
must determine whether the purposes of the statute (preventing flight and criminal
acts) are fulfilled, and whether the government is incarcerating the alien for reasons

other than flight risk or dangerousness. Id. The Court noted that the government
need not automatically free a criminal alien who obtains a bond hearing; but the
government must afford the alien an individualized bond hearing. Id. at 1218. Here,
while Petitioner filed his Petition approximately eight months into his detention, he
has now been detained a little beyond the one-year mark. As such, the first Sopo
factor weighs in favor finding that Petitioner’s detention has been unreasonably

prolonged.
A second factor in the evaluation is the reason the removal proceedings have
become protracted. Since Petitioner asserted his right to appeal his order of removal,
his release from detention has been delayed pending the conclusion of that appeal.
ECF No. [1-3] at 4. The Eleventh Circuit has noted that “[c]ourts should consider
whether the government or the criminal alien have failed to participate actively in
the removal proceedings or sought continuances and filing extensions that delayed

the case’s progress.” Sopo, 825 F.3d at 1218. The Court also specifically stated that
“aliens should not be punished for pursuing avenues of relief and appeals.” Id.
(citation omitted). Here, Petitioner’s immigration proceedings have become
protracted through no fault of either Petitioner or Respondents. Petitioner has
diligently pursued his immigration case on the merits and exercised his right to file
an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. As such, this factor does not weigh
in favor of either party.
The third Sopo factor addresses whether it will be possible to remove the

criminal alien after there is a final order of removal. In their supplemental briefing,
Respondents provided no response as to this factor. See ECF No. [15]. Given that
Petitioner was previously ordered removed to Cuba, it is probable that his removal
would most likely have to be effectuated through a third country. See e.g., Guerra-
Castro v. Parra, No. 1:25-CV-22487, 2025 WL 1984300 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2025)
(noting that petitioners of Cuban origin are often removed through a third country).

However, it is likely that Petitioner’s detention will be further prolonged as
Respondents will need to seek approval from that third country before effectuating
his removal. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of granting a bond hearing.
The fourth Sopo factor examines whether the alien’s civil immigration
detention exceeds the time the alien spent in prison for the crime that rendered him
removable. Respondents also do not address this factor. Petitioner was sentenced to
one year community control, two years of probation, restitution, and anger

management for his previous conviction, yet he has been detained for more than one
year. Accordingly, this factor favors Petitioner.
The fifth Sopo factor similarly weighs in Petitioner’s favor. This factor
considers whether the facility for civil immigration detention is meaningfully
different from a penal institution for criminal detention. Id. Petitioner has been
detained primarily at the Krome North Service Processing Center, which is an ICE
detention facility. Respondents did not address this factor in their response and have
not shown that Petitioner’s detention is meaningfully different from a penal
institution or criminal detention. This factor, thus, weighs in Petitioner's favor.

The sixth factor addresses the total length of detention. In their supplemental
brief, Respondents acknowledged that Petitioner had been detained for
approximately 12 months. ECF No. [15] at 5. As of the date of this Order, Petitioner
has now been detained 13 months. This factor also weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
The seventh factor analyzes the foreseeability of the proceedings concluding in
the near future. Respondents have not addressed this factor, nor have they provided

a status as to Petitioner’s appeal. Accordingly, the record is not sufficiently developed
to permit the Court to evaluate this factor.
The eighth factor analyzes the period of detention compared to the criminal
sentence. As stated above, there is no indication that Petitioner was sentenced to
detention in his criminal case, while here Petitioner has been detained for over a year.
Thus, this factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
The ninth factor looks to the promptness (or delay) of the immigration

authorities or the detainee. Again, the Court already determined that Petitioner’s
detention has been prolonged due to his appeal. The record does not seem to indicate
that Respondents have delayed in any aspect related to Petitioner’s pre-removal
detention, nor can Petitioner be punished for validly pursuing an appeal. Accordingly,
this factor is neutral.
The final factor analyzes the likelihood that the proceedings will culminate in
a final removal order. Respondents argue that they have not had an opportunity to
enforce Petitioner’s non-final order of removal due to his aforementioned pending

appeal. ECF No. [15]. at 6. Given that the Court cannot anticipate how the Board of
Immigration Appeals will rule on Petitioner’s appeal, it is unable to determine
whether his immigration proceedings will culminate in a final order of removal.
Thus, this factor does not weigh in favor of either party.
In sum, the majority of Sopo factors weigh in Petitioner’s favor. The Court is
mindful that Petitioner has been detained for over twelve months and, absent a bond

hearing, will surely remain detained until the Board of Immigration Appeals decides
his appeal. See e.g., Warsame v. Meade, No. 20-22401-CIV, 2020 WL 13551825 (S.D.
Fla. Aug. 18, 2020) (granting habeas relief where detention was near the 12-month
mark). Accordingly, based upon on the specific facts of this case, the Court concludes
that Petitioner’s continued pre-removal detention without a hearing violates his due
process rights.
III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. [1], is GRANTED
IN PART as set forth herein. Respondents shall afford Petitioner an individualized
bond hearing within seven (7) days of this Order or otherwise release Petitioner.
Respondents shall also, within 24 hours of the bond hearing, file a Status Report
indicating the outcome of the bond hearing and, if release on bond is denied, the
reason(s) for the denial.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 6th day of July,
2026.

JACQU E BECERRA
UNITE TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384185. Public record. Not legal advice.