Reported / Citable
Background
Henderzoht Rengifo Palacios, a Venezuelan national detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 18, 2026. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), he alleged that his detention had extended beyond the removal period and that his removal was not reasonably foreseeable. He sought immediate release.
ICE opposed relief, explaining that an immigration judge ordered Palacios removed on June 5, 2026, and that the order became administratively final only after he failed to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals within the allotted time. The matter was before a magistrate judge for findings and a recommended disposition.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended that the habeas petition be summarily dismissed without prejudice as premature. Under Zadvydas, detention for up to six months after a removal order becomes final is presumptively constitutional, and that six-month period had not elapsed when Palacios filed his petition.
Because Palacios filed before the immigration judge issued the June 5 removal order—and therefore before the order later became administratively final—he could not yet maintain a post-removal-order detention challenge under Zadvydas. The recommendation did not foreclose a later challenge after the relevant period had elapsed.
Key Takeaways
- A Zadvydas challenge to post-removal-order detention ordinarily is premature until six months have passed after the removal order becomes administratively final.
- A removal order becomes final when the Board of Immigration Appeals affirms it or when the deadline to appeal expires without an appeal.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice, not a final merits judgment denying any future habeas claim.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that the timing of a § 2241 petition is critical in immigration-detention litigation. The relevant six-month presumption runs from administrative finality of the removal order, not from the detainee’s initial entry into ICE custody or the filing of a petition before removal proceedings conclude.
For practitioners, the decision also highlights the importance of confirming the removal order’s finality date before asserting a Zadvydas claim and of distinguishing a magistrate judge’s recommendation from a final district-court ruling.