Habeas corpus; 28 USC § 2241; Christian v. Wellington; Whether aliens in withholding-only proceedings are detained under 8 USC § 1226 or § 1231; Prieto-Romero v. Clark (9th Cir.); Guzman Chavez v. Hott (4th Cir.); Guerra v. Shanahan (2d Cir.); Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison (3d Cir.); Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible (9th Cir.); 8 CFR § 236.1(d)(1); §§ 241.4 & 241.13(a); § 1229(a)(3); § 1231(a)(5); § 1208.2(c)(2); Castellano-Chacon v. I.N.S.; §§ 1208.17(b)(2) & 1208.16(f); Whether a reinstated removal order is “administratively final”; Hosseini v. Johnson; Moreno-Martinez v. Barr; 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; Padilla v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (9th Cir.); Diouf v. Mukasey (9th Cir.)

The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of petitioner-Melara Martinez’s (Melara) petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that aliens in withholding-only proceedings are detained under § 1231(a) and thus, are not entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge (IJ). It also held that because Melara’s removal was reasonably foreseeable, his continued detention did not violate due process under Zadvyda. In 2017, Melara was detained for illegal entry into the country. He filed a habeas petition requesting either release or a bond hearing. Resolving whether he was entitled to a bond hearing turned on whether he was detained under § 1226 or § 1231. Aliens detained under § 1226(a) are entitled to bond hearings before an IJ, while aliens detained under § 1231(a) do not have a right to a bond hearing. Noting that the circuits are split on this issue, the court joined the Third and Ninth Circuits by holding that aliens such as Melara in withholding-only proceedings are detained under § 1231(a). It reviewed the statutes and held that “Section 1226(a) applies when an alien is awaiting a decision on whether he will be removed from the United States. Section 1231(a) applies when an alien has already received a final decision that he will be removed from the United States. Section 1231(a)(5) is clear that an alien in Melara’s circumstances already has a final decision that he will be removed.” Pursuant to § 1231(b)(3)(A), “withholding-only proceedings solely concern whether an alien can be removed to a particular country, not whether the alien is removable.” The court further held that a reinstated removal order is an “administratively final” decision. Melara also argued that the length and indefiniteness of his ongoing detention violated his due process rights. Applying Zadvydas (“an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future[,]”), the court concluded that Melara’s removal was reasonably foreseeable after the appeals process is exhausted.