Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Eunice Manjarrez Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico also known as Eunicia Penaloza, is subject to a final removal order dated July 2, 1997, and was previously removed from the United States twice. On October 14, 2025, ICE reinstated her removal order and detained her in a targeted operation. An immigration judge denied her withholding of removal applications on April 28, 2026. Reyes filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 on May 4, 2026, challenging her detention as prolonged and referencing a pending Form I-360 with USCIS. The district court denied her motion for a temporary restraining order on May 13, 2026, finding no likelihood of success on the merits, and referred the matter to the magistrate judge. Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) and that Reyes received all due process. Reyes did not file an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends denying the habeas petition. The court finds Reyes is mandatorily detained pursuant to a reinstated removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), which authorizes detention without a bond hearing while withholding-only proceedings are pending. Citing Johnson v.
Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021), the court holds that a noncitizen subject to a reinstated order may only seek withholding of removal and is subject to detention under § 1231. The court also denies the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, finding the interests of justice do not require it, and denies respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, electing to reach the merits instead. The clerk is directed to enter judgment for respondents and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen subject to a reinstated removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) is subject to mandatory detention during withholding-only proceedings.
- The pendency of a Form I-360 with USCIS does not affect the legality of detention under a reinstated removal order in habeas proceedings.
- Pro se petitioners who fail to oppose a motion to dismiss after court order face summary denial on the merits.
- Magistrate judges may issue findings and recommendations on habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), subject to de novo review by the district judge upon objection.
- The court retains habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review challenges to immigration detention, even where statutory jurisdiction-stripping provisions might be argued.
Why It Matters
This order applies the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. Guzman Chavez to a routine reinstatement-of-removal case, confirming that mandatory detention under § 1231(a)(5) applies for the duration of withholding-only proceedings. The decision illustrates the narrow scope of habeas review for noncitizens with reinstated orders: once the reinstatement order is validated and withholding proceedings have been provided, continued detention is presumptively lawful regardless of length.
The denial of counsel without prejudice reflects the high bar for appointment in civil immigration habeas cases. The magistrate’s recommendation to deny the jurisdictional motion to dismiss preserves district court habeas authority over detention challenges, consistent with Zadvydas and St. Cyr.
The ruling also illustrates the importance of matching the requested remedy to the governing detention or review statute, preserving a complete evidentiary record, and distinguishing a magistrate judge’s recommendation from a final judgment where applicable.