Reported / Citable
Background
Wilmary Bryana Salazar Rodriguez, a Venezuelan citizen detained at the Prairieland Detention Center, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking immediate release from ICE custody. She alleged that her continued detention violated 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Salazar Rodriguez stated that she entered immigration custody on April 20, 2026, and received a removal order dated June 4, 2026. She did not appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, explaining that she had agreed to deportation but remained detained because Venezuela was not receiving people following earthquakes. Because she did not name a respondent, the magistrate judge directed the clerk to designate the warden of the detention center as the proper respondent.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because the challenge was premature. Even assuming that the removal order became administratively final on the earliest possible date—June 4, 2026—the statutory 90-day removal period had not expired when the recommendation issued.
The magistrate judge also concluded that Salazar Rodriguez had not been detained beyond the six-month period recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis as presumptively reasonable for post-removal-order detention. She reported only about three and a half months of total custody. The recommended dismissal would not prevent her from filing another § 2241 petition after the six-month period expires.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge to continued post-removal-order detention is premature when the detainee has not remained in custody beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period.
- The six-month period begins when the removal order becomes administratively final, not necessarily when immigration custody begins.
- The detainee’s immediate custodian—here, the detention center’s warden—is the proper respondent to a § 2241 petition challenging physical confinement.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the timing limits on habeas challenges to immigration detention under Zadvydas. A detainee generally cannot obtain review of allegedly indefinite post-removal-order confinement before the presumptively reasonable six-month period has elapsed, even when removal may face practical obstacles. Because this was a magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation, it remained subject to objections and action by the district judge.