Reported / Citable
Background
Manuel Z. H., a Mexican national who entered the United States with his parents in 1995, was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on November 30, 2025. He remained detained at the El Valle Detention Center in Willacy County, Texas. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Mexico on May 21, 2026.
Manuel Z. H. petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, relying on the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1225. The government responded with a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment and later supplemented that motion.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Karen Betancourt recommended denying the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the report concluded that Manuel Z. H. was detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The report further concluded that the constitutional claims, as pleaded, were not viable. Citing Demore v. Kim, it explained that detention during removal proceedings, including detention without a bond hearing, is generally a constitutionally permissible part of the removal process. Although constitutional limits might be implicated in some circumstances, the report stated that the petition did not raise that family of issues.
The magistrate judge also recommended mooting the government’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and directing the clerk to close the case. Because the document is a report and recommendation, the parties have 14 days after service to file specific written objections for consideration by the assigned district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The report determined that Manuel Z. H. was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
- His Fifth Amendment claims, as actually pleaded, did not establish a basis for habeas relief.
- The recommended disposition is not a final district-court judgment and remains subject to objections and review by the assigned district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies recent Fifth Circuit authority governing detention under § 1225(b)(2) and treats detention during ongoing removal proceedings without a bond hearing as generally constitutionally permissible under Demore.
It also underscores the importance of pleading the particular circumstances that allegedly push immigration detention beyond constitutional limits. The report recognized that such limits may exist but found that Manuel Z. H.’s petition did not present those issues.