Xiao Luo Huang v. Sergio Albarran, et al.

Huang v. Albarran · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · December 15, 2025 · No. 1:25-CV-01308 JLT EPG

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California reconsidered its prior denial of Xiao Luo Huang’s motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release from immigration detention. The court concluded that the applicable framework concerns ICE’s authority to re-detain a person previously released under supervision and that respondents bear the burden of showing changed circumstances indicating a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court ordered respondents to show cause by December 23, 2025, and provide updated information concerning Huang’s travel-document application and removability.

Holdings

  1. The Zadvydas framework governing initial post-removal-order detention is not directly applicable to a noncitizen who was previously detained, released on supervision after the removal period expired, and later re-detained after revocation of supervised release.
  2. When ICE revokes supervised release to effectuate removal, respondents bear the burden to show changed circumstances indicating a significant likelihood that the noncitizen may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
  3. On the updated record, respondents had not yet sufficiently demonstrated that changed circumstances justified Huang's re-detention or continued detention, and they were required to show cause why immediate relief should not be granted.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether reconsideration was warranted because the court had applied the wrong legal framework to Huang's re-detention after prior release on supervision.
  2. Whether, under 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l), respondents rather than Huang bore the burden to show changed circumstances indicating a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
  3. Whether the updated evidence established that respondents had demonstrated a significant likelihood of Huang's removal sufficient to justify his re-detention or continued detention.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001)(distinguished)
  • Nguyen v. Hyde, 788 F. Supp. 3d 144, 150, 152 (D. Mass. 2025)(followed)
  • Escalante v. Noem, No. 9:25-CV-00182-MJT, 2025 WL 2206113, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2025)(followed)
  • Roble v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-3196 (LMP/LIB), 2025 WL 2443453, at *4 (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2025)(followed)
  • Abuelhawa v. Noem, No. 4:25-CV-04128, 2025 WL 2937692, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2025)(followed)
  • Yan-Ling X. v. Lyons, No. 1:25-CV-01412-KES-CDB (HC), 2025 WL 3123793, at *3–4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2025)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…