Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Yosvany Padilla, a Cuban national, was detained by ICE on November 26, 2025, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) for removal proceedings based on an aggravated felony conviction. On September 8, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Padilla removed to Cuba after he withdrew his pending applications, waived appeal, and requested to be deported as quickly as possible. The removal order became final that same day. Padilla signed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 4, 2026, which was filed on September 11, 2026, three days after the final removal order. He argued his detention was prolonged and that there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondent filed an answer styled as a motion to dismiss.
The court addressed the dispute on the record described in the opinion. Allegations are presented as allegations, and the procedural posture controls what the ruling establishes. The result therefore turns on the motion and evidence actually before the court, not on a final resolution of every claim in the underlying litigation overall.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the habeas petition without prejudice. The court found that the final removal order shifted detention authority from § 1226(c) to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), which authorizes a mandatory 90-day removal period. As of the date of the recommendation, Padilla was well within that 90-day statutory window. The court explicitly stated that nothing in the order prohibits Padilla from filing a new petition if he is not removed within the 90-day period and wishes to challenge prolonged detention based on the likelihood of removal. The Respondent’s motion to dismiss was recommended for denial as moot.
The magistrate judge recommended denial without prejudice because Padilla was still within the statutory 90-day removal period. The recommendation preserved a later challenge if removal did not occur and allowed 14 days for objections.
Key Takeaways
- A final removal order triggers the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), during which detention is presumptively lawful.
- Habeas challenges to detention duration are premature if filed within the statutory 90-day removal period absent extraordinary circumstances.
- A petitioner’s waiver of appeal and request for expedited removal weigh against claims of prolonged detention.
- Denial without prejudice preserves the right to challenge detention if removal is not effectuated within 90 days.
- Magistrate Judge recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) require timely objections to preserve appellate rights.
Why It Matters
This Findings and Recommendations order illustrates the standard framework for evaluating § 2241 petitions challenging post-removal-order detention. It reaffirms that the 90-day period under § 1231(a) provides a safe harbor for the government to effectuate removal, and that courts generally will not entertain prolonged detention claims until that period expires. The ruling highlights the procedural posture where a detainee’s own actions—waiving appeal and requesting removal—undercut subsequent claims that detention is unlawful. The explicit preservation of the right to re-file after the 90-day period aligns with Zadvydas v. Davis and ensures compliance with due process limits on indefinite detention.
The decision is a timing ruling, not a determination that detention may continue indefinitely.