Lilian Munoz Alvarez v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, et al.

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition by an Ecuadorian detainee challenging her continued immigration detention under Zadvydas v. Davis. The court concludes that the claim is premature because less than six months had elapsed after the removal order became final. It recommends dismissal without prejudice, subject to the petitioner's right to refile if her continued confinement later becomes unconstitutional.

Holdings

1. Federal courts retain jurisdiction under § 2241 to review constitutional or statutory challenges to immigration detention that do not challenge a final order of removal, although the REAL ID Act and related statutes restrict review of final removal orders and discretionary detention, bond, or parole decisions.
2. A Zadvydas-based challenge to post-removal-order detention was premature because Petitioner had not been detained for six months after her removal order became final.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the federal district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider Petitioner's constitutional challenge to her immigration detention.
2. Whether Petitioner's Zadvydas-based challenge to her continued post-removal-order detention was premature because she had not been detained for six months after the removal order became final.

Disposition

dismissed