Reported / Citable
Background
Sadat K., a citizen of Ghana, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Cameron County, Texas. He entered the United States on or about May 11, 2025, without being admitted or paroled after inspection, or at a location other than one designated by the Attorney General.
An immigration judge denied Sadat K.’s applications for asylum and related protection and ordered him removed on January 23, 2026. His timely appeal remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. He petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because it was prolonged and placed coercive pressure on his exercise of appellate rights.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Karen Betancourt recommended denying the habeas petition. The report concluded that Sadat K. was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
The report also rejected the constitutional challenge. Citing Demore v. Kim, it concluded that detention during ongoing removal proceedings, even without a bond hearing, is generally a constitutionally permissible part of that process. The magistrate judge further recommended denying the government’s summary-judgment motion as moot and directing the clerk to close the case. The recommendation remained subject to objections and review by the assigned district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The filing is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final judgment by the district judge.
- The magistrate judge concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) authorized the petitioner’s detention while his removal proceedings remained pending.
- The report found no due-process violation under the authorities it applied, despite the absence of a bond hearing and the petitioner’s claim that detention had become prolonged.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to uphold detention under § 1225(b)(2) while administrative removal proceedings are ongoing. It also illustrates the substantial obstacle that Demore presents to due-process challenges based solely on continued detention without a bond hearing during those proceedings.
Because the ruling is a report and recommendation, the parties may file specific written objections within 14 days of service before the assigned district judge decides whether to adopt it.