(CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES) — A federal habeas strategy—challenging ICE’s authority and process when it re-detains someone on an Order of Supervision—has emerged as a frontline defense for long-term residents caught up in the Trump administration’s renewed “mass deportation” push, as illustrated by this week’s ruling blocking the deportation of Felix Eni, a 68-year-old Nigerian national.
On December 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino granted habeas relief in Eni v. Noem et al. (Case No. 3:25-cv-03524) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2025), ordering ICE to immediately release Eni under the conditions of his prior supervision order. The court found ICE failed to give adequate notice of what changed to justify revoking his long-running supervised release. The decision lands amid a broader enforcement posture that has encouraged “self-deportation” and prioritized removals based on even old, minor records.
What follows is a defense-strategy explainer for people who, like Eni, are re-detained after years of ICE supervision, including those with withholding of removal or other protection that limits where ICE can send them.
Relief option: Federal habeas corpus to challenge re-detention and supervision revocation
Habeas corpus is a federal court action that challenges unlawful detention. In the immigration context, it is typically filed in U.S. district court, most often where the person is detained.
The claim is often framed as a due process and regulatory compliance challenge: ICE must follow its own rules when it revokes an Order of Supervision and re-detains someone.
In many cases, the immediate goal is release from custody (sometimes with reinstated supervision), not a direct grant of immigration status.
Legal framework that often matters
Key authorities commonly implicated in these cases include:
- Detention authority after a final order: INA § 241; 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (the “removal period” and post-order detention).
- Orders of Supervision: 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 (continued detention and release after custody reviews) and 241.5 (terms of an Order of Supervision).
- Bond and custody redetermination limits: 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (with important constraints for post-order detention).
- Administrative law principles: Agencies generally must follow their own procedures, and abrupt reversals can trigger due process and APA-style arguments, depending on posture.
Because federal habeas practice is technical, representation is often decisive. The wrong filing, venue, or claim framing can delay relief.
Warning
If ICE has issued a final order of removal and detained you under INA § 241, immigration court bond may be unavailable. A habeas petition may be the main path to challenge detention length or process.
Eligibility basics: Who may be a good candidate for this strategy?
A habeas-based supervision-revocation challenge is most commonly viable when:
- You were released on an Order of Supervision for a significant period.
- ICE re-detained you after compliance with check-ins and conditions.
- ICE provided little or no notice of the reasons for re-detention.
- ICE claims “changed circumstances,” but offers thin or generic support.
- You have withholding of removal or CAT protection, which restricts removal to the country of feared persecution.
Eni’s posture, as described in public reporting and court filings, fits that pattern. He reportedly complied for 17 years. The court faulted ICE for insufficient notice and an inadequate changed-circumstances explanation.
Withholding of removal matters
- Withholding of removal is not a green card. It is a protection order that bars removal to a particular country when a “more likely than not” persecution standard is met (see INA § 241(b)(3)).
- Many people with withholding remain under final removal orders, often on supervision.
- That posture can create flashpoints when ICE attempts removal to a third country. The legal analysis becomes fact-specific and fast-moving, especially when travel documents or diplomatic conditions shift.
Evidence that typically supports a strong habeas and supervision case
Successful detention challenges tend to be evidence-heavy. Practitioners commonly assemble:
- The full ICE supervision file
– The Order of Supervision (OSUP).
– All check-in logs and compliance records.
– Any prior custody review paperwork under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4.
2. Proof of compliance and stability
– Proof of residence: lease, mortgage, utility bills.
– Employment records, tax filings, retirement documents.
– Community ties, caregiving roles, medical needs.
3. The re-detention paper trail
– Any Notice of Revocation or explanation letters.
– Emails, screenshots, and officer notes if available.
– A timeline showing surprise detention.
4. Risk-of-flight and danger rebuttal evidence
– Criminal history records with certified dispositions.
– Evidence of rehabilitation and significant time elapsed.
– Character letters and proof of program completion.
5. Country-conditions and protection documentation (if relevant)
– Prior withholding/CAT decision documents.
– Updated country reports and expert letters when ICE raises third-country removal.
These cases often turn on whether ICE can articulate a real, individualized basis for re-detention, and whether the person had a fair chance to respond.
Deadline risk
In detention, timing is unforgiving. Consult counsel immediately. Missed filing windows and incomplete records can undermine even strong claims.
What strengthens or weakens cases in practice
Factors that tend to strengthen a case
- Long-term compliance with ICE check-ins and OSUP terms.
- Stable residence and documented community ties.
- Medical vulnerability or caregiver responsibilities.
- Old, minor convictions with clear certified records.
- Clear procedural defects, such as lack of notice or no meaningful opportunity to respond.
- A record showing ICE previously found you not a flight risk.
In Eni’s case, the court emphasized procedural failure and the government’s obligation to follow its rules. Courts are often sensitive to abrupt re-detention after years of compliance.
Factors that tend to weaken a case
- Recent arrests or unresolved charges.
- Prior failures to report or OSUP violations.
- Evidence ICE can cite as new, individualized “changed circumstances.”
- Travel, document fraud, or indicators of flight risk.
- A record showing DHS made repeated removal attempts blocked only by logistics.
Even when the equities are strong, outcomes can differ by circuit and judge. Federal habeas standards are not uniform in every context.
Bars and disqualifying issues to flag early
Some issues can limit remedies or complicate the posture:
- Jurisdictional limits under INA § 242 (8 U.S.C. § 1252), which restricts certain challenges to removal orders. Many habeas petitions must be carefully framed as custody and process challenges, not direct attacks on the removal order.
- Criminal grounds: Certain convictions can affect detention authority, discretionary considerations, and the availability of parallel relief. Obtain certified dispositions.
- Prior removal and illegal reentry: Reinstatement and criminal exposure can change the risk calculus. Separate criminal counsel may be needed.
- Third-country removal disputes: These can become urgent and complex, especially if ICE asserts it can remove you somewhere other than the country covered by withholding.
Because these overlaps are technical, this is an area where experienced immigration litigation counsel is critical.
Don’t go alone
Filing a habeas petition requires correct venue, proper respondents, and emergency motion practice. Pro se filings often miss procedural requirements.
Realistic expectations: What outcomes are common?
In supervision-revocation habeas cases, the most realistic goals are:
- Release from custody back onto supervision.
- A court order requiring ICE to follow procedures, provide notice, or conduct a proper custody review.
- Temporary restraining order (TRO) or injunction preventing immediate removal while claims are heard.
Less commonly, habeas litigation can prompt broader agency review. But it usually does not erase the underlying removal order. People often remain in a long-term “limbo” status unless they later qualify for another immigration benefit.
There is no reliable public dataset for success rates because outcomes vary by district, facts, and posture. However, courts are generally more receptive where the record shows years of compliance and thin process.
Why attorney representation is central in “mass deportation” conditions
The enforcement environment described in DHS public statements suggests faster timelines and fewer discretionary pauses. That can compress litigation time and increase the stakes of each procedural step.
A qualified immigration attorney can:
- Obtain records quickly through FOIA and litigation discovery tools where available.
- Coordinate immigration, federal court, and criminal issues.
- Seek emergency relief when removal is imminent.
- Preserve appeal options to the circuit court if needed.
For detained individuals, families should also consider contacting local nonprofit legal service providers immediately and gathering documents before they are hard to obtain.
Official government resources
- EOIR Immigration Court information: EOIR Immigration Court information
- USCIS forms and guidance: USCIS forms and guidance
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
– https://www.aila.org/find-a-lawyer
This article explores the federal habeas corpus strategy used to challenge ICE re-detention. Using the case of Felix Eni as a primary example, it details how courts are holding ICE accountable for procedural failures when revoking supervision orders. It provides a guide on eligibility, essential evidence for defense, and the technical legal framework governing post-order detention and due process rights for long-term residents.
