Reported / Citable
Background
Juan Toribio Pena-Martinez, a Mexican citizen detained at the El Valle Detention Center in Raymondville, Texas, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleged that he had been in immigration custody since December 12, 2025.
DHS placed Pena-Martinez in removal proceedings and detained him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). An immigration judge ordered him removed on March 12, 2026, and Pena-Martinez appealed that order to the Board of Immigration Appeals. His removal case therefore remained pending when he filed his petition.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Ignacio Torteya, III recommended that the district court deny the petition and close the case. The report concluded that Pena-Martinez’s detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), without an individualized bond hearing, did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause while his BIA appeal was pending.
Pena-Martinez did not contest DHS’s statutory authority to detain him. Applying Demore v. Kim, the magistrate judge reasoned that mandatory detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible because the government has an interest in ensuring that noncitizens do not abscond. The report treated that reasoning as applicable to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), even though Demore involved a different mandatory-detention provision.
Key Takeaways
- This was a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district-court disposition.
- The report recommended rejecting a due-process challenge to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing while removal proceedings remain unresolved.
- Parties had 14 days to object; failure to object could limit appellate review to plain error.
Why It Matters
The recommendation reflects the court’s view that the government’s interest in preventing flight during pending removal proceedings can justify mandatory detention without an individualized custody determination. It also distinguishes statutory detention authority from constitutional challenges, noting that constitutional claims remain subject to review even after Fifth Circuit precedent supports classification under § 1225(b)(2)(A).