Jose J. R. D. v. Administrator

Background

Jose J. R. D. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. He alleged that the detention violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process and requested immediate release or, alternatively, a hearing on whether he should remain detained. He also filed motions for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause.

The report states that Jose J. R. D. is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States in 2014 and has lived here continuously since then. He resides in South Dakota with his wife, who is a lawful permanent resident. His wife filed a family-immigration petition for him in 2019, and the Department of Homeland Security approved that petition. The agency also approved his application for a provisional waiver of unlawful presence. The report explains that obtaining an immigrant visa required him to leave the United States, attend an interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate, and be found otherwise eligible for the visa.

He was later arrested in Minnehaha County, South Dakota, on probable cause for allegedly driving under the influence. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a detainer, served him with an administrative warrant and a notice to appear before an immigration judge, and took him into immigration custody. He was transferred to the Kandiyohi County Jail in Minnesota, where he remained detained. The report states that his immigration proceedings continued during his detention, including a hearing on June 8, 2026. The record did not show whether a hearing scheduled for June 22, 2026, occurred or what happened at it.

Issues and analysis

The government argued that Jose J. R. D. was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). He argued that this mandatory-detention provision applied only to people seeking admission at the border, not to someone arrested inside the United States after living there for an extended period.

The report relied on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Avila v. Bondi, which held that § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies inside the country as well as at the border. Based on that decision, the report recommended dismissal of the portion of the petition based on the location of his arrest and his extended presence in the United States.

Jose J. R. D. also argued that his detention had become unreasonably prolonged and no longer served a reasonable purpose. The report applied Zadvydas v. Davis, which held that immigration detention must last no longer than reasonably necessary to carry out removal. Under that decision, six months is presumptively reasonable when removal is reasonably foreseeable. The report found that Jose J. R. D. had been detained for about 20 days when he filed the petition and about two months by the date of the report. It also noted that his immigration proceedings were continuing. The report therefore concluded that his detention had not become unreasonably prolonged.

Recommended disposition

The report and recommendation recommends that the relief requested in the petition be DENIED. It also recommends that the motion for a temporary restraining order be DENIED and that the motion for an order to show cause be DENIED AS MOOT. Because the report is not a district-court order or judgment, it is not directly appealable; the notice allowed the parties to file written objections by July 22, 2026, and responses to objections by July 29, 2026.