Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 3:26-cv-02094-JKM Document13 Filed 10/14/26 Pagelof5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARCELINO ABREU BONORA, : No. 3:26cv2094
Petitioner :
(Judge Munley)
Vv.

WARDEN, Clinton County
Correctional Facility,
Respondent

eee Ce eee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee |
SEPP

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 filed by Marcelino Abreu Bonora. (Doc. 1). Abreu Bonora is a 62-year-
old Cuban national in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (Doc. 10-4 at ECF p.

2),

1 Federal district courts are authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
where the petitioner is detained “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner filed the instant petition while detained at Clinton
County Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1 at ECF pp. 1, 6). Petitioner asserts that his continued
detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at ECF p. 6. Thus, the
court has habeas jurisdiction over the petition. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004).
Contrary to the government's assertions, nothing alleged in the petition for writ of habeas
corpus strips the court of jurisdiction—not the third country removal process, not the certified
class in D.V.D. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 26-1212, ——_—~F.4th
___, 2026 WL 2797801, at “4-6 (1st Cir. Sept. 18, 2026), stay entered and cert. granted,
S.Ct. 2026 WL 2917860 (Sept. 29, 2026), and not the provisions at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)
and (g). As discussed in the body of this memorandum, this matter fits squarely within the
discussion in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).

Case 3:26-cv-02094-JKM Document13 Filed 10/14/26 Page2of5

Abreu Bonora was admitted to the United States as a refugee on
December 3, 2015. (Doc. 10-4 at ECF p. 3). His application for permanent
residence or adjustment of status was denied in 2019. Id.

On August 24, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Abreu Bonora was sentenced to time served and three years
of supervised release for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to
distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 846. (Doc. 10-8 at
ECF pp. 2-4). Shortly thereafter, on October 4, 2022, an immigration judge
found the petitioner deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for his
controlled substances conviction and under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ili) for his aggravated
felony conviction. (Doc. 10-7 at ECF p. 2-4). The IJ ordered the petitioner
removed to Cuba. Id. There is no indication that petitioner appealed that
determination. Petitioner was not removed at that time.

On February 6, 2025, Abreu Bonora admitted that he violated the terms of
his federal criminal supervised release by and through convictions for
larceny/grand theft and for use of cocaine. (Doc. 10-9 at ECF pp. 2-3). He was
sentenced to twelve months and one day of incarceration, consecutive to the
term of imprisonment for his underlying state court convictions. Id. at 4.

On December 29, 2025, ICE took Abreu Bonora into custody from the

custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at FCl-Loretto in Cambria County,

Case 3:26-cv-02094-JKM Document13 Filed 10/14/26 Page3of5

Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1 at ECF pp. 4, 6; Doc. 10-4 at ECF p. 3). On January 14,
2026, Abreu Bonora was served with a third-country notice of removal by ICE
with the intent to remove him to Mexico. (Doc. 10-15). According to a
deportation officer employed by ICE, there is a significant likelihood that Abreu
Bonora will be removed to Mexico in the reasonably foreseeable future. (Doc.
10-2, A. Campbell Decl. ¥] 27).

According to Bonora, he is detained at the Clinton County Correctional
Facility under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or § 1226(c). (Doc. 1 at ECF pp. 2, 6).
Contrary to his assertions, Abreu Bonora’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231 and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Pursuant to the statute,

when an alien is ordered removed, the government “shall” remove the alien from
the United States within a period of 90 days, the “removal period.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(1)(A). The removal period begins on the latest of the following dates:

(i) The date the order of removal becomes administratively

finall;] (ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and if a

court orders a stay of the removal of the alien, the date of

the court's final order[;] or (ili) If the alien is detained or

confined (except under an immigration process), the date

the alien is released from detention or confinement.
§ 1231(a)(1)(B). During the removal period, the individual subject to the removal
order shall be detained. § 1231(a)(2)(A).

Only Section 1231(a)(1)(B)(ili) is applicable to the petitioner. That is, Abreu

Bonora’s removal period began on the date he was released from the
3

Case 3:26-cv-02094-JKM Document13 Filed 10/14/26 Page4of5

confinement portion of his federal criminal sentence on December 29, 2025.
(Doc. 1 at ECF p. 6). The Section 1231(a)(1)(A) removal period ended 90 days
later, on March 29, 2026. That was six months ago.

Abreu Bonora is deportable under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2).
Thus, the petitioner may be detained beyond the removal period or released
under terms of supervision. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6); Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 683.
Section 1231(a)(6) does not expressly specify how long detention past the 90-

day removal period may continue. Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573,

579 (2022). In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court construed 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) to
permit detention only for a period reasonably necessary to secure removal, and
recognized a “presumptively reasonable” six-month detention period. 533 U.S. at
682, 699, 701. After six months, “once the alien provides good reason to believe
that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future, the [g]Jovernment must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that
showing.” Id. at 701.

Here, as Abreu Bonora approaches the 10-month mark of detention, he
has not supplied the “good reason” contemplated in Zadvydas. No details about
the likelihood of removal may be found in his initial petition, and the petitioner did

not file a traverse. The government indicates that it has been working to remove

Case 3:26-cv-02094-JKM Document13 Filed 10/14/26 Page5of5

the petitioner to Mexico. (Doc. 10-2, A. Campbell Decl. {| 24). Consequently,
the court cannot grant relief to the petitioner under Zadvydas.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1) Marcelino Abreu Bonora’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is
DENIED; and

2) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

E COURT:

JUDGE JULIA K. MUNL
United States District

Date: IE
[ /