Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Belkis Xiomara Martinez Chacon, a native and citizen of Honduras, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through counsel after Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained her on August 15, 2026. She had previously been released on an order of recognizance on December 7, 2020, and the action challenged her later re-detention. The recommendation describes her work authorization, moving business, family responsibilities, medical needs, and acknowledged prior arrests and charges, while also recording that several charges were dropped or dismissed.
The parties did not dispute that Martinez Chacon was placed in standard removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. Her cancellation-of-removal application was denied by an immigration judge in July 2025, and her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending. She filed the habeas petition on September 8, 2026; respondents answered on October 23, and she replied on October 30. The petition asserted a statutory claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and a Fifth Amendment due process claim. Respondents argued that she violated release conditions and engaged in criminal activity after release, but did not object to a court-ordered bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that § 1226(a) governed Martinez Chacon’s detention because she was in standard § 1229a removal proceedings and had been released on her own recognizance. The recommendation explains that § 1229a itself supplies no detention authority and that § 1226(a) provides the general arrest-and-detention process for noncitizens present in the United States and eligible for removal. Under that framework, the government makes an initial custody determination, and release turns on whether the person poses a danger to property or persons and is likely to appear for future proceedings.
Because detention under § 1226(a) carries an entitlement to a bond hearing, the court recommended granting the petition on the statutory claim. It did not decide the separate due process claim, reasoning that the statutory ruling supplied the requested habeas relief. It separately recommended denying an Accardi-doctrine claim first raised in the reply because a traverse is not the proper pleading for additional grounds for relief.
The proposed disposition would require a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an immigration judge or neutral decisionmaker within fourteen days of adoption of the findings and recommendations. Respondents would bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified by danger to the community or flight risk. The proposal also requires at least seven days’ notice, permits counsel to be present if Martinez Chacon has counsel, and calls for immediate release if the hearing is not held within fourteen days. These are recommendations to the assigned district judge, not a final judgment; the order allows written objections within seven days and responses within seven days after service of objections.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge treated standard § 1229a removal proceedings and release on recognizance as establishing that § 1226(a) governed the petitioner’s detention.
- The recommended statutory relief is a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, rather than an immediate unconditional release on the merits of the detention claim.
- Respondents would have to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence of community danger or flight risk under the proposed order.
- The Fifth Amendment due process claim remains undecided because the statutory claim supports the requested relief.
- The Accardi claim raised for the first time in the reply would be denied as procedurally improper, and the entire disposition remains subject to district-judge review.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the distinction between standard removal proceedings and other detention authorities to a re-detention following years of release on recognizance. Its practical focus is procedural protection: a timely hearing, advance notice, access to counsel, and a government burden to justify continued custody.
The document should not be reported as a final grant of habeas relief or as a ruling that the petitioner must ultimately be released on bond. It recommends judgment in her favor and case closure only upon adoption, while expressly preserving the objection process and leaving the constitutional claim unresolved.