Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Veronica Nfumu Mbamedja, a citizen of Equatorial Guinea, entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in September 2023 and was authorized to remain until March 2024. Immigration authorities detained her on May 6, 2026, and charged her with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
An immigration judge later denied Mbamedja bond after finding that she posed a flight risk. She did not appeal that decision administratively, but filed a federal habeas petition alleging that her continued detention violated due process. The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing both that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because she had not exhausted administrative remedies and that her detention was constitutionally permissible.
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that Mbamedja’s failure to appeal the immigration judge’s bond decision did not deprive it of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that the INA does not impose a statutory exhaustion requirement on challenges to immigration detention, as opposed to appeals from final removal orders.
The court nevertheless concluded that Mbamedja had not alleged a due-process violation. Because detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and Mbamedja had received a bond hearing, her continued detention did not violate procedural due process. The court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, denied the habeas petition, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- An immigration detainee’s failure to appeal a bond ruling did not eliminate federal habeas jurisdiction because the INA does not statutorily require exhaustion for detention claims.
- Detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible, and the petitioner’s receipt of a bond hearing defeated her procedural due-process claim.
- The court denied habeas relief on the merits despite the respondents’ characterization of their filing as a motion to dismiss.
Why It Matters
The decision separates two recurring issues in immigration-detention litigation: whether a federal court may hear an unexhausted habeas claim and whether the detention itself violates due process. Here, jurisdiction existed despite the lack of an administrative appeal, but the completed bond hearing left the petitioner without a viable procedural due-process claim.