Santana-Salceiro v. Unknown Party et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Osniel Santana-Salcerio,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Party, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-00852-PHX-MTL (ASB)
ORDER
This case involves a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner,
a Cuban citizen who entered the United States illegally, alleges that the duration of his
detention violates the United States Constitution. Petitioner was issued a final order of
removal in 2018 but was released on an order of supervision requiring annual reporting.
(Doc. 1 at 3.) He was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
personnel on October 26, 2025. (Id. at 4 ¶ 5.) On its face, the petition fails to state a basis
for relief. It will be denied without prejudice.
I.
Petitioner’s continued detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Under § 1231(a)(1), the Government has 90 days in which to
remove an alien once a removal order becomes final. Detention during this removal period
is mandatory. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). If the Government cannot affect removal within the
90-day removal period, however, continued detention of aliens such as Petitioner becomes
discretionary. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). That discretion, however, is not unfettered, and
Case 2:26-cv-00852-MTL--ASB Document 4 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
indefinite detention is not permitted. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689 (8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)
“does not permit indefinite detention.”). This is not to say that every alien like Petitioner
must be released once the 90-day removal period has expired. 533 U.S. at 701. Rather, the
Supreme Court in Zadvydas recognized an implicit post-§ 1231(a)(2) period in which
continued detention is “presumptively reasonable” and does not violate the Fifth
Amendment. Id. The Zadvydas Court concluded that this “presumptively reasonable”
period extends for no more than 6-months once an order of removal becomes final
(including the 90-day mandatory detention period under § 1231(a)(2)). Id. From that point,
“once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence
sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. If, after considering the evidence, the Court finds
that “removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should hold continued detention
unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute.” Id. at 699.
II.
Petitioner has been detained for less than the 6-month demarcation point for the
presumptively reasonable detention period under Zadvydas. Therefore, Petitioner cannot
show that his continued detention is unlawful. The Petition will be dismissed without
prejudice. Petitioner is advised that he may refile if detention continues beyond the
mandatory period and there is a good-faith basis to assert that it is unlawful.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED without
prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) is
DENIED as moot.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00852-MTL--ASB Document 4 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2