Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Daniel L., a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection on an unknown date. In August 2021, he was convicted in California state court of two felonies—pandering to a person under 16 and force/assault with a deadly weapon (not firearm) with great bodily injury likely—and sentenced to eight years in prison. On April 13, 2026, while at a parole office in Auburn, California, he was taken into immigration custody. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 challenging his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), arguing defects in the statutory and regulatory basis for his initial detention, the absence of a Form I-286 custody determination, and the timing of the Notice to Appear and Form I-200, and asserting due process violations. The government opposed, maintaining his detention was mandatory under § 1226(c) and that he could seek a custody hearing under Matter of Joseph. The court appointed counsel and ordered supplemental briefing.
The Court’s Holding
While the petition was pending, an Immigration Judge ordered Daniel L. removed to Mexico on October 6, 2026, and both parties waived appeal, rendering the removal order administratively final. The court held that the final removal order shifted the statutory authority for detention from § 1226 to § 1231(a)(2), which mandates detention during the 90-day removal period.
Consequently, the petitioner's challenges to his prior detention under § 1226 were rendered moot because the court could no longer grant the requested relief under that statute. Furthermore, because fewer than 90 days had elapsed since the final removal order, the petitioner had no colorable due process claim for release from his current detention under § 1231. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, granted the respondent's request to lift the no-transfer order, and revoked the prior order prohibiting transfer.
Key Takeaways
- A final removal order shifts detention authority from 8 U.S.C. § 1226 to § 1231, rendering challenges to § 1226 detention moot.
- During the 90-day removal period under § 1231(a)(2), detention is mandatory and a detainee cannot raise a colorable due process claim for release until at least 90 days have passed.
- The court dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice, preserving the petitioner's ability to challenge prolonged detention if removal is not effected within the statutory period.
- The court granted the government's request to lift a previously imposed no-transfer order, allowing the respondent to execute the removal order.
- The decision relies on Ninth Circuit precedent (Duralev v. Mayorkas and Khotesouvan v. Morones) and Supreme Court authority (Johnson v. Guzman Chavez) regarding the mootness of § 1226 claims post-final-order and the mandatory nature of § 1231 detention.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural posture shift that occurs when removal proceedings conclude while a habeas petition challenging pre-final-order detention is pending. It reaffirms that once a removal order becomes administratively final, the legal framework governing detention changes entirely: the court loses jurisdiction to grant relief based on the prior statutory authority (§ 1226), and the detainee enters a mandatory detention window under § 1231 during which due process challenges to the fact of detention are foreclosed for at least 90 days. The dismissal without prejudice preserves the petitioner's right to file a new habeas petition if detention extends beyond the statutory removal period without a significant likelihood of removal, consistent with Zadvydas v.
Davis. The ruling underscores the limited window for judicial review of immigration detention prior to a final order and the strict constraints on habeas relief during the removal period.