ICE Detention Capabilities Limited by Tenth Circuit Ruling: Key Points for Cubans Under Supervision

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a ruling on Tuesday that limits the ability of ICE to indefinitely reset the detention clock every time an individual with a final deportation order is re-arrested. This decision sets a precedent with direct implications for Cubans living under supervision, as their deportations often cannot be carried out.

In the case Abedi v. Carter, No. 25-3179, the court clarified that the six-month presumption of reasonableness established by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) "applies only to the first six months after the removal period is triggered."

Simply put, the government cannot use repeated cycles of release and re-detention to create new, ostensibly valid detention periods.

Individual Analysis Required for Extended Detention

The opinion, written by Judge McHugh with Judge Phillips concurring, further mandates that any detention beyond the initial period requires a personalized analysis that justifies the reasonable necessity of keeping the individual in custody to carry out a foreseeable deportation.

This case originated from the situation of Kaveh Abedi, an Iranian national who arrived in the United States in 1991, was granted asylum, and in 2002, received a deportation deferral under the Convention Against Torture. For over two decades, he adhered to all the conditions of his supervision order. However, in June 2025, ICE agents arrested him in his garden in Kansas—where he had moved with the agency's permission—without citing any violation of his obligations.

Procedural Violations Highlighted

The revocation notice stated that his freedom was suspended because "deportation to a country other than Iran is now a possibility." The government also promised a prompt informal interview for Abedi to contest the revocation reasons, as required by regulation 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3), but acknowledged that it had not been conducted in over six months.

The court deemed this omission harmful in itself, without requiring Abedi to prove additional harm: when an agency violates a regulation protecting due process guarantees, the infraction invalidates the action irrespective of demonstrable concrete harm.

Judge Eid dissented, arguing that the case was moot following Abedi's release in February 2026—secured through a second habeas corpus petition—and that the exception invoked by the majority should be reserved for "exceptional situations."

Implications for Cuban Nationals

While the ruling does not cancel deportation orders or grant new immigration benefits, it prevents the government from automatically restarting the six-month period with each new arrest. This holds indirect yet significant importance for Cubans under immigration supervision, as Cuba routinely refuses to accept deportees, leading to prolonged detentions of individuals with final removal orders.

In recent months, ICE has re-arrested several Cubans released by court order without alleging any breach of conditions, reflecting the same pattern cited in Abedi as evidence that the problem could recur.

The geographic reach of this decision is crucial: the Tenth Circuit covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as parts of Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Idaho. Florida, home to the largest Cuban community in the U.S., falls under the Eleventh Circuit and is not bound by this precedent.

Coincidentally, on the same day, a Florida judge ordered ICE to review the detention of a Cuban whose deportation is also not imminent, within 30 days, in a separate legal case.

The ruling applies exclusively to individuals detained post-final order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, not to those held during active immigration proceedings under different statutes. Each case should be individually assessed by a qualified immigration attorney.