Saeidi v. Bondi et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
SHARMIN S., 1 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-114
§
PAMELA BONDI, et al., 	§
in their official capacities, 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION
Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Dkt. No. 1) (“Petition”).2 Petitioner requests the Court grant the Writ of Habeas
Corpus and order Respondents to release her from immigration detention. Dkt. No. 1 at 12.
For the following reasons, it is recommended the Court deny the Petition.
Petitioner is an Iranian national, currently detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement at the El Valle Detention Facility in Raymondville, Texas. Dkt. No. 1 at 2.
Petitioner states she entered the United States on March 29, 2025. Id. at 6. On November 20,
2025, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner’s removal after deeming her Form I-589
Application incomplete and abandoned. Id. at 18. She filed a timely Notice of Appeal with
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on December 12, 2025. Id. at 6. The appeal
remains pending. Id.
Petitioner challenges her current detention by immigration authorities on two main
grounds. Dkt. No. 1 at 8-11. First, Petitioner argues Respondents’ statutory authority to
detain her falls under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 11. Thus, Petitioner contends she qualifies
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.
2 Petitioner later filed a “Motion to Expedite Ruling on Habeas” (Dkt. No. 13).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00114 Document 14 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
for being released either on bond or on conditional parole. Id. Second, Petitioner claims her
detention is prohibited under the Due Process clause for a lack of an individualized hearing
before a neutral decisionmaker. Id. at 9. The Court finds neither argument persuasive for the
following reasons.3
First, Petitioner’s challenge to the statutory authority under which she is detained
fails, because Petitioner is detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026). Second, Petitioner’s challenge to her detention
while her appeal to the BIA remains pending 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).
While the Court has acknowledged the possibility of instances where such detention could
strain constitutional limits, see, e.g., id. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring), Petitioner has not
raised that family of issues in this Petition, see Dkt. No. 1.
It is therefore recommended that the Court:
(1) DENY the Petition (Dkt. No. 1),
(2) GRANT Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11)
(3) DENY Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite Ruling on Habeas (Dkt. No. 13)
(4) 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).
3 Petitioner makes additional arguments pertaining to erroneous pretermission (Dkt. No. 1 at 10), her
marriage to a U.S. citizen (Id. at 12), and the Administrative Procedure Act (Dkt. No. 8 at 6). This Court
finds it unnecessary to address these arguments as they are complaints on how her immigration case was
handled by the Immigration Court.
Case 1:26-cv-00114 Document 14 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
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 21, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00114 Document 14 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3