Reported / Citable
Background
Yoanny Yanes Ramon, an immigration detainee in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention pending removal. Relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), he alleged that ICE had detained him beyond the statutorily authorized removal period, that his detention violated due process, and that his removal was not reasonably foreseeable. He sought immediate release.
An immigration judge ordered Ramon removed on February 5, 2026. Ramon appealed that order to the Board of Immigration Appeals on March 16, 2026, and the appeal remained pending when the magistrate judge reviewed his petition. Ramon did not appear to challenge his pre-final-order detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or § 1226.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended summarily dismissing the petition without prejudice as premature. Because Ramon’s BIA appeal remained pending, the immigration judge’s removal order was not yet final under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B). His detention therefore had not entered the post-final-removal-order period governed by § 1231(a)(6).
Under Zadvydas v. Davis, detention is presumptively constitutional for six months after a removal order becomes final. Because Ramon’s removal order was not final, that six-month period had not begun, much less expired. The magistrate judge therefore concluded that Ramon could not yet pursue the post-removal-order detention claim asserted in his petition.
Key Takeaways
- A pending BIA appeal prevents an immigration judge’s removal order from becoming final.
- A Zadvydas challenge to post-removal-order detention is premature before the removal order becomes final and the presumptively reasonable six-month detention period elapses.
- The recommendation called for dismissal without prejudice, leaving Ramon able to pursue an appropriate detention challenge later.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that the procedural status of removal proceedings determines which immigration-detention statute and legal framework apply. A detainee awaiting a BIA decision ordinarily cannot obtain relief by alleging unlawful post-removal-order detention under § 1231(a)(6).
It also highlights the importance of framing a habeas claim under the provision governing the petitioner’s current detention. The magistrate judge noted that Ramon did not appear to challenge his pre-final-order detention under § 1225 or § 1226.