Guanoluisa v. Francis

Background

Anderson Omar Tacuri Guanoluisa filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal statute allowing a person to challenge unlawful custody. His father, Edgar Tacuri, filed it on his behalf as a next friend, meaning a person who brings an action for someone unable to do so personally.

Guanoluisa was arrested by immigration officials in New York on August 21, 2025, after an immigration hearing, and taken to an ICE holding room. On August 22, he was transported to Newark Liberty International Airport and placed on a charter flight to El Paso, Texas. His petition was filed while he was in the air. The petition stated that he continued to be detained at 26 Federal Plaza in New York, but the court found that his father and others acting for him could not reasonably have known about the transfer when the petition was filed. Guanoluisa was later held at an ICE facility in El Paso.

The Government’s Motion

The respondents moved to transfer the case to another federal district or, alternatively, to dismiss it so it could be filed elsewhere. They argued that the Southern District of New York was not the proper place for the detention petition because Guanoluisa had already left the district before filing. The respondents did not identify a specific alternative district, taking no position on whether the case belonged in New Jersey or the Western District of Texas.

Court’s Analysis

For a petition challenging physical confinement, the usual rules require filing in the district where the person is confined when the petition is filed and naming the immediate custodian—the official who has the ability to bring the person before the court. The court explained that an exception applies when the government keeps the person’s location and custodian unknown despite reasonable efforts to find that information.

The court applied that exception because Guanoluisa was being moved by immigration officials, his family did not know his location, and the government did not show that the transfer information was available through the immigration detainee locator or another source. Naming the Secretary of Homeland Security therefore satisfied the immediate-custodian requirement.

The court also addressed the unusual circumstance that Guanoluisa was on an airplane when the petition was filed. Because he was not physically detained in any federal district at that moment, the court concluded that the proper venue was his last known detention location: the Southern District of New York. The court reasoned that this approach ensured that a detainee would always have a district where a challenge could be filed and that New York had a strong connection to the case. The court noted that Guanoluisa had been arrested and detained there and that he lived there with his father.

Ruling and Next Steps

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas held that the Southern District of New York could hear the petition and DENIED the respondents’ motion to transfer or otherwise dismiss it. The order did not decide the underlying legality of Guanoluisa’s detention. The respondents were ORDERED to file an answer within five business days, and Guanoluisa was allowed ten business days to file a reply.