Hernandez-Perez v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JHONATAN HERNANDEZ-PEREZ, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1081-J
)
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
)
)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging his detention by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials after
he was granted deferral of removal 	[Doc. No. 1]. 	The matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell who entered a Report and Recommendation recommending
that the Court conditionally grant habeas corpus relief to Petitioner after a forty-five (45) day
deferral period so that Respondents can provide the Court with additional information on the
removal efforts. 	Based on the ongoing custody determination and the additional factual
development that was needed to determine whether there is a significant likelihood of removal in
the reasonably foreseeable future, the Court rereferred this matter to Judge Mitchell. On December
23, 2025, Judge Mitchell entered a Supplemental Report and Recommendation recommending that
the Court grant habeas corpus relief and order Respondents to release Petitioner from detention
under an Order of Supervision. The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and
Recommendation by December 30, 2025. 	Respondents filed an objection [Doc. No. 25] which
triggers de novo review.
Case 5:25-cv-01081-J Document 26 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001), the Supreme Court concluded that “once
removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by
statute.” The Supreme Court further found:
After this 6-month removal period, 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. And for detention to
remain reasonable, as the period of prior postremoval confinement
grows, 	what 	counts 	as 	the 	“reasonably 	foreseeable 	future”
conversely would have to shrink.
Id. at 701.
In the Supplemental Report and Recommendation, Judge Mitchell finds that Petitioner has
provided good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future, that Respondents have not rebutted Petitioner’s showing with evidence that his
removal is likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that because his removal is no
longer reasonably foreseeable, Petitioner’s continued detention is no longer authorized by statute.
In their objection, Respondents assert that Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that there
is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Having reviewed the
court file, the Court concurs with Judge Mitchell’s finding. It is undisputed Petitioner has been
detained over six months; three countries have not responded to the requests for acceptance; three
countries have denied acceptance; the most recent request for acceptance was submitted nine
months ago; and no updates on the removal efforts are available from Enforcement and Removal
Operations. 	Additionally, the cases cited by Respondents in their objection are factually
distinguishable; in all of the cases cited, other countries were actively working on procuring the
necessary travel documents for removal; such is not the case here. The Court thus concludes that
Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in
the reasonably foreseeable future.
Case 5:25-cv-01081-J Document 26 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Supplemental Report and Recommendation [Doc.
No. 24], GRANTS Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc.
No. 1], and ORDERS Petitioner be released from custody immediately, subject to an appropriate
Order of Supervision.1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of January, 2026.
1 8 C.F.R. § 241.5 governs the issuance and conditions of orders of supervision.
Case 5:25-cv-01081-J Document 26 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3