The petition, filed by the petitioner without a lawyer, contained “very little background information,” so the court relied on the respondents’ account. He had been removed to Honduras in 2011 and 2022 without claiming fear. On 23 May 2026 immigration officers took him into custody near Salisbury, Maryland, and reinstated the 2011 removal order; “Petitioner claimed fear of removal to Honduras.” He was referred for a reasonable fear interview on 15 July 2026. On 11 August 2026 an immigration judge took testimony and “concurred with the Department of Homeland Security’s determination that Petitioner’s fear of returning to his home country was not credible.” The court recorded that “Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1), no administrative appeal is available.” On custody, the court held that “because Petitioner is detained pursuant to § 1231 and a reinstated order of removal, he is not entitled to a bond hearing,” and that he “is not entitled to ‘any neutral custody determination’ as he suggests.” It treated the reinstated order as starting a new removal period: “Petitioner has only been detained on the reinstated order of removal since May 23, 2026, which is less than three months, and far less than the presumptively reasonable six-month period.” It stated that it “will not consider Petitioner’s assertions concerning the foreseeability of removal until after the six-month removal period has elapsed.” The petitioner relied on decisions concerning people re-detained for removal to a third country, including one in which removal to Mexico was enjoined. The court held that those decisions “are factually distinguishable from the instant case and are therefore inapposite.” The respondents told the court that “upon the conclusion of this habeas proceeding or the vacatur of the no movement order, Respondents should be able to promptly effectuate Petitioner’s final order of removal to his native Honduras.”
Caution Not a third-country removal case. The facts are the respondents’ account, adopted because the petition gave little background. The negative reasonable fear determination was made by the immigration judge after the petition was filed and was not under review in this case. The court declined to consider whether removal is reasonably foreseeable until the six-month period has run, so the denial does not decide that question. With the no-transfer order vacated, the respondents said they expected to remove him promptly to Honduras. The copy is a scanned image with a machine-read text layer; quotations were checked against the page images.
Bond hearing Prolonged detention (Zadvydas) Reinstated removal orders Reasonable fear Self-represented petitioner Transfer out of district
The court's own text
Read in full from the text of the memorandum opinion.
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.