A federal judge in Miami has directed the release of a Cuban national held at the Krome North Processing Center, determining that his refusal to endorse deportation notices to Mexico does not amount to obstructing the process, and that the U.S. Government has not presented a practical plan for his removal.
The decision, issued on November 10 by Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, partially grants the habeas corpus petition filed pro se by O.Z.M., identified in the case as Orelbe Zayas Mantilla.
The case has a lengthy history. O.Z.M. arrived in the U.S. as a permanent resident in 1994 and following a conviction for a serious offense against a minor, an immigration judge ordered his deportation to Cuba in 2008.
Once the order was finalized, ICE detained him in 2015, released him under an Order of Supervision, and re-detained him in October 2025 to carry out the deportation.
The challenge arose promptly: the Cuban regime refused his repatriation in November 2025. Subsequently, ICE attempted to send him to Mexico as a third country, notifying him of deportation on four different occasions—in December 2025, February, May, and June 2026—and making an attempt at the San Ysidro port on January 28, 2026. In each instance, O.Z.M. refused to sign and did not cooperate.
The Government contended before the judge that this behavior constituted an "obstruction," justifying indefinite detention. Judge Bloom did not concur with this argument.
The core analysis of the order revolves around the Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) precedent, which establishes six months as the presumptively reasonable period to detain a foreign national with a final deportation order.
Once this period is surpassed, if the detainee demonstrates that removal is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the burden of proof shifts to the Government.
The judge concluded that the Government failed to meet this burden. Her decision stated that "there is no evidence of a real plan for removal nor any coordination with Cuba, Mexico, or another country."
No travel documents or clear third-country destination were identified: ICE merely stated it was "exploring additional third-country options."
Regarding the refusal to sign, Bloom was specific: the essence of obstruction analysis is to determine if "the keys" to the detainee's freedom are in his own pocket, meaning whether ICE could execute the deportation if he simply cooperated. The record does not support this.
Additionally, she referenced the Sanchez v. Bondi precedent (Western District of Washington, January 2026), which notes that Mexico's acceptance of a Cuban might depend on the individual's consent, which the Government does not possess.
ICE is required to release O.Z.M. by 5:00 p.m. this Friday under the conditions of his existing Order of Supervision, and certify compliance by Monday, November 16. The order clarifies that the agency may re-detain him if deportation becomes feasible.
The ruling is district-level and does not set a binding precedent, but it can be referenced in other habeas corpus petitions from Krome within the Eleventh Circuit.
This is not the first of its kind: similar cases have been resolved in Nevada and the Tenth Circuit, and a judge in Kentucky also ordered a review of another Cuban's detention rejected by Havana. Thousands of Cubans with old orders and supervision orders fear being re-detained and sent to Mexico under similar circumstances.
The legal landscape might shift in December: the Supreme Court is set to review the DHS v. D.V.D. case on December 9, which will decide if the Government must provide procedural guarantees before deporting someone to a third country not designated in the original order. Individuals facing similar situations should seek advice from an immigration attorney.
This decision is part of a constantly evolving immigration landscape. Stay informed on all developments regarding detentions, deportations, and immigrant rights in our U.S. Immigration section.
Understanding the Legal Implications of the Krome Release Order
What was the main reason for the release order of the Cuban detainee?
The main reason was the determination that the detainee's refusal to sign deportation notices did not constitute obstruction, and the government failed to demonstrate a real plan for removal.
What precedent did Judge Bloom consider in her ruling?
Judge Bloom considered the precedent set by Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which sets a six-month period as the reasonable timeframe for detaining someone with a final deportation order.
Can this ruling be used in other similar cases?
While it does not create a binding precedent, this ruling can be cited in other habeas corpus petitions within the Eleventh Circuit.
What could change in the legal scenario in December?
The Supreme Court will review the DHS v. D.V.D. case, which will determine if the government must offer procedural guarantees before deporting someone to a third country different from the original order.