Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jonathan Alexander Molina filed a pro se habeas petition challenging his immigration detention at the Prairieland Detention Center. He also moved for a temporary restraining order requiring his release under an order of supervision while the petition remained pending or, alternatively, a bond hearing.
Molina had been detained since February 2, 2026, under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 following a final removal order. He asserted that removal was not reasonably foreseeable because he was protected from removal to his country of origin under the Convention Against Torture, no third country had agreed to accept him, and immigration authorities had offered no evidence that removal was likely. He acknowledged, however, that ICE had attempted to remove him to Mexico and that he refused to leave the bus at the border.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. It first concluded that Molina sought through preliminary injunctive relief the same release or bond-hearing remedy requested in his habeas petition, and that a litigant cannot obtain the ultimate habeas relief through a request for injunctive relief.
The court also found that Molina had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Although detention beyond six months may require the government to respond when a detainee gives good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the limited record did not establish that predicate showing. The attempted removal to Mexico undercut Molina’s contention that removal was not foreseeable, and his allegations did not describe what process he received or explain factually why it was deficient. The habeas petition remained pending.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petitioner cannot use a temporary restraining order to obtain the same ultimate relief sought in the underlying petition.
- Detention exceeding six months does not alone establish entitlement to release under the framework of Zadvydas v. Davis; the detainee must provide good reason to believe removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- Evidence that ICE attempted removal supported denial of emergency relief, while Molina’s undeveloped procedural allegations did not show a likelihood of success.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden facing immigration detainees who seek emergency release based on prolonged post-removal-order detention. A petitioner must do more than point to the duration of detention or demand that the government prove removal is imminent; the petitioner must first make a concrete showing that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The ruling was limited to Molina’s request for immediate temporary relief. It did not resolve the merits of his habeas challenge, which remained before the court.