Salat v. Bondi et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
ABDULLAHI M.S., 1 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-32
§
PAM BONDI, et al., 	§
in their official capacities, 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. No. 1).
Petitioner requests the Court order Respondents to release him from immigration detention, claiming
his detention is statutorily flawed and unconstitutional. Dkt. No. 1 at 22-24. The Government
responds with a Motion for Summary Judgement asking the Court to continue detention as
mandatory. Dkt. No. 14. Because Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2) and Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026), it is
recommended the Court deny the Petition.
Petitioner 	is 	a 	Somalia 	national, 	currently 	detained 	by 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement at the Port Isaabel Detention Facility in Los Fresnos, Texas. Petitioner entered the
United States on October 10, 2024, and thereafter was paroled into the United States. 	He was
subsequently arrested by immigration officials on December 5, 2025 in Minnesota and remains in
immigration custody.
After this Court asked the Petitioner to brief the issue on the application of Buenrostro to the
Petitioner, Petitioner narrowed his challenge to his current detention by immigration authorities as
constitutional due process and Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) claims. Dkt. No. 16.
As the parties agree, Petitioner’s challenge to the statutory authority under which he is
detained fails, because Petitioner is detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), Buenrostro-Mendez v.
1 Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will refer to the petitioner
only by first name and last initial.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00032 Document 17 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026). Second, Petitioner’s challenges to his detention while his
immigration proceedings are pending, whether as unconstitutional or in violation of the APA, fails,
because detention “during removal proceedings,” even where such detention is without a bond
hearing, is generally a “constitutionally permissible part of that process.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S.
510, 531 (2003).
It is therefore recommended that the Court:
(1) DENY the Petition (Dkt. No. 1),
(2) GRANT Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 14)
(3) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report
and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United States District Judge
assigned to the instant case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an objection, a party must object to
specific facts or legal findings in this Report and Recommendation. The District Judge is not required
to consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834
F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record before
adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without conducting a de
novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on appeal, except on the grounds
of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on July 29, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00032 Document 17 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2