Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Edixon David Buitriago Godoy, a 38-year-old native and citizen of Venezuela proceeding without counsel, entered the United States without inspection near Eagle Pass, Texas, on April 29, 2023. USCIS granted him Temporary Protected Status on June 17, 2024, but that status expired on April 2, 2025. The recommendation also states that his asylum application appears to remain pending and that he received employment authorization valid through March 9, 2030. ICE detained him on August 5, 2026, after his arrest in Layton, Utah, for criminal trespass of a dwelling and public intoxication; those charges remained pending, and the record did not indicate another criminal history.
Petitioner received a Notice to Appear in standard removal proceedings under INA § 240, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, rather than expedited removal proceedings. On September 8, 2026, an immigration judge offered a bond hearing. The request was withdrawn without prejudice because petitioner had not supplied supporting documentation, was not ready to proceed, and sought more time; the order permitted him to request a hearing when ready. His verified August 25 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleged Fifth Amendment due-process violations, arrest without a warrant, and detention without an individualized bond hearing. Respondent opposed the petition and moved to dismiss, asserting lawful detention under § 1226(a) and mootness because a custody-redetermination or bond hearing had been scheduled.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim recommends denying the petition. On due process, the court explains that 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i) govern revocation of release for a noncitizen who has been ordered removed. Petitioner supplied no support for a prior removal order, instead describing his court proceedings as pending, while respondent submitted material indicating no prior immigration history. The court therefore concludes that he is not subject to a final removal order and that the cited revocation regulations do not apply. Liberally construing his additional TPS, asylum, and work-authorization argument, the court distinguishes his three cited decisions: Dang involved prior release under § 1226(a), Valencia Magallan involved mandatory detention under § 1226(c), which respondent had not asserted, and Reinfeld Freytes involved humanitarian parole rather than entry without inspection.
On the statutory claims, the court recounts § 1226(a)'s protections, including arrest on a valid warrant, an initial custody determination, and a bond hearing. Because an arrest warrant issued on August 5, the warrant provision appears satisfied. The September 8 opportunity for a bond hearing and the withdrawal without prejudice likewise lead the court to conclude that the bond-hearing provision appears satisfied. It separately recommends denying respondent's motion to dismiss because petitioner requested alternative relief, rejecting the asserted mootness ground on this record. The recommendation also calls for judgment for respondent and case closure, but those steps remain recommendations to the district judge, not actions finally ordered by this document. Objections were due within fourteen days, with responses due seven days after service.
Key Takeaways
- The court applies the revocation-of-release regulations only after finding them pertinent to a noncitizen who has been ordered removed, and it finds no final removal order in this record.
- TPS, a pending asylum application, and employment authorization did not change the outcome here, and each decision petitioner cited was distinguished on its particular detention or entry posture.
- The August 5 administrative warrant and the September 8 opportunity for a bond hearing support the court's qualified conclusion that the relevant § 1226(a) provisions appear satisfied.
- The withdrawn bond request was without prejudice, leaving petitioner able to seek another hearing when prepared rather than treating the withdrawal as a completed merits hearing.
- Respondent's mootness motion is recommended for denial because the petition also requested alternative relief, while the habeas petition itself is recommended for denial.
Why It Matters
This unpublished findings-and-recommendations decision illustrates a record-specific approach to detention challenges during pending § 1229a proceedings: the court separates post-removal-order release regulations from the protections governing detention under § 1226(a). Its treatment of the warrant and bond-hearing issues rests on the documents and procedural history before it, including the absence of a prior removal order and the opportunity to renew the bond request.
The disposition should not be read as a final district-court judgment or as binding precedent. The magistrate judge recommends denial of both the petition and respondent's motion and recommends judgment for respondent, subject to the objection process and action by the assigned district judge.