Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Hassan K., a native of Ethiopia and citizen of Somalia, became a lawful permanent resident on October 8, 2009. In February and March 2026, he was convicted of two separate misdemeanor retail theft offenses. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for having committed two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising from a single scheme of criminal misconduct.
An immigration judge found him removable as charged on August 19, 2026, based on his admissions and concessions, and ordered his removal to Ethiopia or Somalia. The order indicates Petitioner waived appeal, though he subsequently filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which acknowledged receipt on September 14, 2026. Petitioner has been in immigration custody since June 2026 and filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention.
The Court’s Holding
The Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. The Court determined it need not resolve whether the removal order became administratively final on August 19, 2026, because the record independently supports mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B). Petitioner was charged with and found removable for two crimes involving moral turpitude under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), a specified criminal ground triggering mandatory detention under § 1226(c).
Petitioner did not challenge the findings supporting his detention under this provision. Citing Demore v. Kim, the Court held that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible, and Petitioner’s approximately four-month detention did not reflect unreasonable delay or other circumstances violating due process. The Court vacated a previously entered transfer restriction and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Respondent and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) applies to lawful permanent residents charged with two crimes involving moral turpitude under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), regardless of whether a final removal order has been entered.
- A petitioner’s failure to challenge the factual basis for mandatory detention—here, the two retail theft convictions and the immigration judge’s removability finding—is fatal to a habeas challenge.
- Detention of approximately four months during ongoing removal proceedings, without evidence of unreasonable delay, does not violate due process under Demore v. Kim.
- The Court declined to decide whether the BIA appeal prevented the removal order from becoming administratively final, resolving the case on the alternative ground of § 1226(c) mandatory detention.
- The petition was denied without prejudice, preserving Petitioner’s ability to refile if circumstances change (e.g., prolonged detention beyond the removal period).
Why It Matters
This order reaffirms the broad scope of mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) for noncitizens with qualifying criminal convictions, including lawful permanent residents. It illustrates that habeas corpus relief under § 2241 is unavailable where the administrative record establishes statutory grounds for mandatory detention and the petitioner identifies no procedural defect or unreasonable delay.
The decision also highlights the procedural posture of pro se immigration detainees: the Court liberally construed the petition but found it devoid of factual allegations or legal arguments sufficient to overcome the statutory detention mandate. The denial without prejudice leaves the door open for future challenges should detention become prolonged or the statutory basis for mandatory detention be undermined.