Reported / Citable
Background
Moussa Ibourahim, a citizen of Togo detained at the Port Isabel Detention Center, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He entered the United States in January 2025 and was placed in removal proceedings. An immigration judge denied asylum and ordered his removal to Togo in July 2025; the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal in March 2026.
Ibourahim petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review in April 2026, and the court automatically stayed his removal order. He challenged his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) without an individualized bond hearing, alleging that it lacked statutory authority and violated Fifth Amendment due process.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Ignacio Torteya, III recommended denying the petition and closing the case. Although Ibourahim’s removal order became administratively final when the BIA dismissed his appeal, the Ninth Circuit’s stay meant the statutory removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 had not begun. The recommendation concluded that he therefore remained detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while review of his removal proceedings continued.
The magistrate judge further concluded that Ibourahim was properly treated as an applicant for admission because he did not claim to have been admitted or paroled into the United States. Relying on Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the recommendation found mandatory detention authorized by § 1225(b)(2)(A), and, applying Demore v. Kim, concluded that detention without a bond hearing did not violate due process.
Key Takeaways
- A judicial stay of removal delays the § 1231 removal period even after a removal order becomes administratively final.
- A noncitizen present without admission or parole may be deemed an applicant for admission and subject to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- The report recommends that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), without an individualized bond hearing, does not violate due process on these facts.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez to reject a statutory challenge to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). It also treats a pending court-of-appeals stay as preserving detention authority under that provision rather than shifting detention into the post-removal-order framework.
This is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district-court ruling. The parties had fourteen days to object.