Sileymane D. v. Warden

Background

Sileymane D. entered the United States on May 16, 2023, seeking protection from persecution in Mauritania. An immigration judge ordered him removed on July 31, 2025, but his appeal remains pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. He traveled to Canada and was apprehended by U.S. immigration officials when he attempted to return on November 9, 2025. He had been detained for close to nine months without a bond hearing.

The opinion explains that, because the removal order was still under appeal, it was not yet administratively final. The court therefore treated his detention as governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1231. The court stated that Section 1225(b)(2) does not itself provide a process for challenging continued detention during removal proceedings.

Due-Process Analysis

The court applied the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge for deciding what procedural protections the Constitution requires. First, it found that Sileymane D.’s interest in freedom from physical detention weighed heavily in favor of a hearing. Second, it found a significant risk of an improper deprivation of liberty because the government had identified no procedure for assessing whether detention remained justified during lengthy removal proceedings. The court rejected the argument that participation in removal proceedings and representation by counsel supplied sufficient process for the separate question of continued detention.

Third, the court found that the government’s interests did not outweigh Sileymane D.’s interests. It concluded that requiring a bond hearing would impose minimal financial or administrative burdens, particularly because detainees already receive hearings during removal proceedings. The court held that continued detention without a bond hearing violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.

The court did not decide whether Sileymane D. should actually be released on bond. It also noted that allegations concerning medical care or other conditions of confinement are not claims that may be pursued through a habeas case.

Recommended Disposition

The Report and Recommendation recommends that Sileymane D.’s habeas petition be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It recommends granting the procedural due-process claim to the extent Sileymane D. requests a bond hearing as the remedy, while denying the petition in all other respects. It further recommends ordering the respondents to provide a bond hearing within 48 hours after an order granting the petition is filed.

The recommendation also states that Sileymane D.’s motion for a temporary restraining order should be DENIED AS MOOT because of the recommended relief on the petition. Respondents were required to object by August 10, 2026, and Sileymane D. could respond by August 17, 2026. The document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment, and is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.