Habeas corpus; 28 USC § 2241; Whether aliens in withholding-only proceedings are detained under 8 USC § 1226 or § 1231; 8 CFR § 236.1(d)(1); §§ 241.4 & 241.13(a); § 1229(a)(3); § 1231(a)(5); § 1208.2(c)(2); Whether a reinstated removal order is “administratively final”; Whether the length & indefiniteness of petitioner’s ongoing detention violated his due process rights; Zadvydas v. Davis; Whether aliens detained under § 1231(a) must receive a bond hearing after a specific lapse of time

In an order, the panel denied petitioner-Melara Martinez’s petition for a rehearing en banc, allowing its prior holding (see e-Journal # 73510 in the 7/31/20 edition) to stand—that he was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, and that aliens in withholding-only proceedings are not entitled to a bond hearing before an IJ. It also held that because his removal was reasonably foreseeable, his continued detention did not violate due process under Zadvydas. The panel concluded “that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision. The petition then was circulated to the full court. Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.” Thus, the petition was denied. Judge Gibbons would have granted rehearing for the reasons stated in her dissent in the original opinion.