Reported / Citable
Background
The petitioner, Delmy F.R., a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection, is currently in immigration custody. Her case is on appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) following a removal order. While her appeal is pending, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the legality of her detention.
Delmy F.R. argued that her ongoing detention is unlawful. The government, named as the respondents in the case, countered by filing a motion to dismiss the petition. The case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation.
The Court’s Holding
United States Magistrate Judge Karen Betancourt recommended that the District Court deny the habeas petition. The court determined that the petitioner’s detention is authorized by federal immigration law. Specifically, under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), noncitizens who enter without inspection are subject to mandatory detention while their admissibility is determined.
Citing Supreme Court precedent in Demore v. Kim, the court noted that detention during removal proceedings is generally a “constitutionally permissible part of that process,” even when no bond hearing is held. The court also observed that the petitioner had not argued that her detention had become unreasonably prolonged in a way that might raise constitutional issues, noting her BIA appeal had only been pending since February 2026. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner’s constitutional claims, as pleaded, were not viable.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who enter the U.S. without inspection are considered “arriving aliens” under the “entry fiction” doctrine and are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) while their removal proceedings are ongoing.
- Detention during the entirety of immigration removal proceedings, including appeals, is generally considered constitutional and does not automatically require a bond hearing.
- A challenge to the constitutionality of immigration detention may fail if the petitioner does not specifically argue and show that the length of their detention has become unreasonable or indefinite under the circumstances.
Why It Matters
This report and recommendation reaffirms the federal government’s broad authority to detain noncitizens who have entered the country without authorization throughout their immigration proceedings, including the appeal process. It underscores the legal framework established by Congress that mandates detention for certain classes of immigrants, limiting the discretion of courts to order their release on bond.
For immigration practitioners and their clients, this decision highlights the significant legal hurdles in challenging detention via habeas corpus. It emphasizes that, absent a showing of unconstitutionally prolonged detention, courts are likely to uphold detention that is statutorily authorized. The ruling serves as a recent example of how courts apply established precedent to deny challenges to the system of mandatory immigration detention.