Reported / Citable
Background
Johariliana Johana Zambrano Romero, a Venezuelan citizen detained while litigating her removal from the United States, filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her immigration detention.
While the habeas petition remained pending, Zambrano Romero filed four motions seeking injunctive relief. She asked the court to prevent her transfer from the district or removal from the country, stay her removal, order her immediate release or an individualized bond hearing, and prohibit respondents from re-arresting or re-detaining her after any release.
The Court’s Holding
In findings, conclusions, and a recommendation—not a final district-court ruling—Magistrate Judge R. Rutherford recommended denying all four motions. The magistrate judge concluded that a transfer would not irreparably harm Zambrano Romero by depriving the court of jurisdiction and that her claimed risk of imminent removal rested on unsupported speculation. Online immigration-court records instead indicated that she was still litigating her removal and was not shown to be subject to a final removal order.
The magistrate judge further concluded that ordering immediate release or a bond hearing would improperly grant the ultimate relief sought in the habeas petition through a preliminary injunction. The request to bar future re-arrest or re-detention was premature because respondents had not yet been served and the court had not determined that Zambrano Romero was entitled to release.
Key Takeaways
- A detainee’s transfer to another district does not establish irreparable harm based on loss of habeas jurisdiction when the original court would retain jurisdiction.
- Unsupported speculation about imminent removal is insufficient to justify a temporary restraining order or stay.
- Preliminary injunctive relief cannot be used to obtain the ultimate habeas remedy, and restrictions on hypothetical future detention are premature before a right to release has been established.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the limits of interim relief in immigration-detention habeas cases. A petitioner must establish concrete irreparable harm, and a preliminary injunction generally may preserve the status quo but may not conclusively award the release or bond-hearing relief sought on the merits.
Because this document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district judge must still decide whether to accept, reject, or modify it after the objection period.