Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mahmoudou Sylla, a Senegalese national and citizen, entered the United States in December 2023. ICE arrested and detained him on May 30, 2025, after an immigration-court appearance. Sylla, who had no criminal history and was pursuing relief before the Board of Immigration Appeals, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and sought release from custody.
The federal respondents moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, contending that Sylla was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and that his habeas claims lacked merit. The court did not resolve the case through statutory interpretation. Instead, it considered whether Sylla’s continued detention without an individualized assessment violated procedural due process.
The Court’s Holding
Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court held that Sylla’s detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied to him without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized determination, violated procedural due process. Sylla had been in the country for more than two years, had previously been released by immigration officials, had no criminal history, and was pursuing relief from removal. The respondents identified neither a procedure for contesting his detention nor a flight-risk, public-safety, or other weighty government interest supporting it.
The court denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, granted Sylla’s habeas petition in part, and ordered his release within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those imposed before the detention at issue. It also barred his removal or transfer under that detention and prohibited re-detention during his removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, after a hearing, that the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that Sylla is a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) violated procedural due process as applied to Sylla because he received no notice, hearing, or individualized assessment of the reason for his detention.
- The court ordered Sylla released within 48 hours, not immediately, and required advance notice to Sylla and his counsel of the release time and location.
- Any re-detention during the pending removal proceedings requires a pre-detention hearing at which the government proves flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates that even when § 1225(b)(2) supplies statutory authority for mandatory immigration detention, the detention may still be unconstitutional as applied when the government provides no individualized process and identifies no substantial interest justifying continued custody.
The remedy was release rather than a bond hearing because the respondents did not identify any available process to await and did not contend that § 1226(a) applied. The order also imposed procedural safeguards against re-detention while Sylla’s removal proceedings remain pending.