Reported / Citable
Background
Asdrubal Jose Laguna-Campos, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention before entry of a final removal order. He requested an individualized bond hearing or release under reasonable conditions of supervision.
An immigration judge ordered Laguna-Campos removed on April 29, 2026. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his appeal on June 11, 2026, and he did not refile it within the allotted time, causing the removal order to become administratively final.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because the detention claims presented in the petition had become moot. Once the removal order became final, Laguna-Campos was no longer detained under the pre-final-order authorities he invoked, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(2) and 1226(a).
His detention was instead governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231 while removal was pending. The magistrate judge further concluded that, even if the petition were liberally construed as challenging post-removal-order detention, that claim was premature because Laguna-Campos had not been detained for at least six months after his removal order became final.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge to pre-final-removal-order detention may become moot when the removal order becomes administratively final.
- After finality, detention pending removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231 rather than the pre-final-order provisions invoked in the petition.
- A challenge to post-removal-order detention was premature because the six-month period recognized in Zadvydas had not elapsed.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates how a change in the procedural status of removal proceedings can eliminate a live controversy over the statutory basis for immigration detention. It also underscores that courts generally will not entertain a prolonged post-removal-order detention claim before the presumptively reasonable six-month period has passed.
This document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final district-court judgment. The parties had 14 days after service to file specific objections before the assigned district judge considered whether to adopt it.