Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Miguel Angel Franco Ortiz, an immigration detainee represented by counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. On October 14, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations granting the petition and ordering Ortiz's immediate release, finding he was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) without a bond hearing. On October 21, 2026, Respondents filed a Notice of Changed Circumstances and objections, informing the Court that an immigration judge had issued a removal order on October 8, 2026, and that both parties had waived appeal.
Respondents argued Ortiz was now detained under the mandatory 90-day post-order removal period authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). The Court ordered briefing on the changed circumstances. In his response, Ortiz admitted the final removal order shifted the detention authority to § 1231(a) but argued the shift did not erase the preceding due process violation or the Court's power to order release.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim vacated its October 14, 2026 findings and recommendations and recommended that the petition be denied and the case dismissed. She concluded that because Ortiz waived his right to appeal the removal order, the order became administratively final on October 8, 2026, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.39 and 1241.1(b). Consequently, the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B) began on that date and runs until January 6, 2027.
During this period, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) mandates detention. Citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 698 (2001), the Court concluded Ortiz is lawfully subject to mandatory detention for the duration of the removal period, rendering his challenge to the prior § 1226(a) detention moot and the petition subject to dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- A waiver of appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals renders a removal order administratively final, triggering the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B).
- During the 90-day removal period, detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), superseding prior detention authorities such as 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- A petitioner's admission that a final removal order has issued shifts the legal framework from discretionary bond eligibility to mandatory detention, generally mooting challenges to the lack of a bond hearing under the prior statutory authority.
- The Court recommended denial of the habeas petition and dismissal of the action with prejudice.
- The findings and recommendations are subject to de novo review by the District Judge upon the filing of objections within 14 days.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural posture where a pending habeas challenge to pre-removal-order detention under § 1226(a) is overtaken by events—specifically, the issuance of a final removal order and waiver of appeal.
The ruling reaffirms that once the removal period commences under § 1231(a), the statutory mandate for detention is strict for the 90-day window, and prior due process arguments regarding bond hearings under § 1226(a) do not invalidate the current lawful basis for confinement. The decision serves as a routine application of Zadvydas and regulatory finality rules in the Eastern District of California.
The ruling also illustrates why posture matters. A magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations remain subject to review by the assigned district judge, while a signed district-judge order has immediate operative effect. Practitioners should read the disposition and objection language before treating proposed relief as final.