Abdullahi M.S. v. Bondi — Magistrate judge recommends denying habeas relief and continuing mandatory immigration detention

Reported / Citable

Background

Abdullahi M.S., a Somali national detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Port Isabel Detention Facility in Los Fresnos, Texas, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He entered the United States on October 10, 2024, was paroled into the country, and was arrested by immigration officials in Minnesota on December 5, 2025.

The petitioner initially argued that his detention was statutorily unauthorized and unconstitutional and sought release. The government moved for summary judgment, maintaining that detention was mandatory. After the court requested briefing on Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the petitioner narrowed his challenge to due-process and Administrative Procedure Act claims concerning his continued detention.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Karen Betancourt recommended denying the habeas petition and granting the government’s motion for summary judgment. This document is a report and recommendation, not a final judgment; the parties were given 14 days to submit specific written objections to the assigned district judge.

The magistrate judge concluded that the petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), relying on Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026). The report further concluded that his due-process and APA challenges failed because detention during removal proceedings, including detention without a bond hearing, is generally a constitutionally permissible part of the removal process under Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003).

Key Takeaways

• The magistrate judge treated the petitioner as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
• The report rejected the due-process and APA challenges to detention without a bond hearing while removal proceedings remained pending.
• The recommendation does not itself dispose of the case; the assigned district judge must act on it after the objection period.

Why It Matters

The recommendation applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to a noncitizen who entered the United States, received parole, and was later taken into immigration custody. It indicates that, within the Southern District of Texas, Buenrostro-Mendez may foreclose statutory challenges to detention under § 1225(b)(2) in materially similar circumstances.

The report also underscores the procedural importance of timely, specific objections. Failure to object may limit appellate review of adopted findings to plain error.