Reported / Citable
Background
Saida K., a native of Russia and citizen of Kyrgyzstan, entered the United States at a port of entry on or about May 27, 2024, and remained detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the El Valle Detention Center. An immigration judge granted her asylum in October 2024, but the government successfully appealed. On remand, an immigration judge denied relief in September 2025 and ordered her removed to Kyrgyzstan or, alternatively, Russia.
Her appeal and motion to remand based on allegedly new evidence remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, so she was not yet subject to a final removal order. After more than two years in custody, she filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking either a bond hearing or release, arguing that her detention had become unreasonably prolonged and violated due process. The government moved for summary judgment and maintained that her detention was mandatory.
The Court’s Holding
In a report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Karen Betancourt concluded that Saida K. was lawfully detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) while her immigration appeal remained pending. The magistrate judge reasoned that detention during removal proceedings, including detention without a bond hearing, is generally a constitutionally permissible part of the removal process.
Although acknowledging that the detention was lengthy, the magistrate judge found it justified under § 1225(b)(2) until the removal order becomes final. She therefore recommended denying the habeas petition, granting the government’s summary-judgment motion on that alternative statutory basis, denying the motion to expedite as moot, and closing the case. The recommendation remained subject to objections and review by the assigned district judge.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who entered at a port of entry and is awaiting resolution of an immigration appeal may be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
- The magistrate judge concluded that more than two years of detention without a bond hearing did not, on this record, establish a due-process violation while removal proceedings remained pending.
- The ruling is a report and recommendation, not a final judgment; the parties had 14 days to file specific written objections with the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court authority permitting detention during ongoing removal proceedings and treats § 1225(b)(2) as authorizing continued mandatory custody despite the detention’s substantial length. It illustrates the difficulty of obtaining habeas relief based solely on prolonged detention when administrative review remains unresolved and no final removal order has issued.