Reported / Citable
Background
Sharmin S., an Iranian national detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the El Valle Detention Facility in Raymondville, Texas, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration detention. She stated that she entered the United States on March 29, 2025.
An immigration judge ordered her removed on November 20, 2025, after deeming her Form I-589 application incomplete and abandoned. She timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the appeal remained pending. She argued that her detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), making her eligible for bond or conditional parole, and that due process required an individualized hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Karen Betancourt recommended denying the habeas petition. Relying on Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the magistrate judge concluded that Sharmin S. was detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rejecting her contention that § 1226(a) governed her detention.
The magistrate judge also concluded that detention during removal proceedings, even without a bond hearing, is generally a constitutionally permissible part of that process under Demore v. Kim. Although detention may strain constitutional limits in some circumstances, the report found that Sharmin S. had not raised that family of issues in her petition. It recommended granting respondents’ summary-judgment motion, denying the petition and motion to expedite, and directing the clerk to close the case. The report gave the parties 14 days to file specific written objections with the assigned district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The report concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rather than § 1226(a), authorized the petitioner’s detention.
- A pending BIA appeal did not, on the arguments presented, entitle the petitioner to release or an individualized bond hearing.
- The decision is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final ruling by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies recent Fifth Circuit authority identifying § 1225(b)(2) as the detention provision governing the petitioner, a classification that foreclosed her asserted eligibility for release under § 1226(a). It also illustrates that a general due-process objection to detention without a bond hearing may fail while removal proceedings remain ongoing.
The report did not decide the petitioner’s complaints about the immigration court’s handling of her case, including pretermission of her application, her marriage to a U.S. citizen, and her Administrative Procedure Act argument. Those issues were treated as challenges to the immigration proceedings rather than grounds requiring resolution of the detention-focused habeas petition.