Tinoco-Potosme v. English

Summary

The court denied Samuel Tinoco-Potosme’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his detention during ongoing removal proceedings. It held that the mandatory detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to a noncitizen arrested in the interior of the United States years after arrival, but concluded that the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and had received the required individualized bond hearing. The court rejected his reliance on the 90-day removal-period provision and Zadvydas v. Davis because no final removal order had been issued, and directed the clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. The mandatory-detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to a noncitizen like Tinoco-Potosme who was arrested in the interior of the United States years after arrival and was not seeking admission at a port of entry.
2. The petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because he was detained under § 1226(a), received an individualized bond hearing, and did not show that the immigration judge's danger determination was erroneous.
3. The ninety-day removal-period provision in § 1231 and the post-removal detention limitations recognized in Zadvydas do not apply because the petitioner's removal proceedings remained ongoing and no final removal order had been issued.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)'s mandatory-detention provision applies to a noncitizen who entered the United States years earlier and was arrested in the interior rather than while seeking admission at a port of entry.
2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to habeas relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because he was detained without constitutionally adequate process.
3. Whether the ninety-day removal-period rule in 8 U.S.C. § 1231 or the limitations recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis applied to the petitioner's pre-removal-order detention.

Disposition

dismissed