Munoz v. Bondi et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sandra Milena Arateco Munoz,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-02951-PHX-MTL (ESW)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE MICHAEL T. LIBURDI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE:
Sandra Milena Arateco Munoz (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Colombia who
is confined at the Eloy Detention Center, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that
relief be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
As detailed in the Court’s September 3, 2025 Order:
Petitioner states she is a native and citizen of Colombia
and is subject to a 2023 final order of removal. In 2022, the
United States reinstated prior removal orders against her but
placed her in withholding-only removal proceedings after
asylum officers determined she had a reasonable fear of
persecution or torture in Colombia.
Petitioner 	states 	that 	on 	December 	24, 	2024, 	she
presented herself at the Nogales, Arizona, port of entry for a
Case 2:25-cv-02951-MTL Document 14 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“CBP-one” appointment and was taken into the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Petitioner asserts that
she applied for humanitarian parole in February and May 2025,
but 	both 	petitions 	were 	denied 	“without 	a 	reason 	or
explanation.” Petitioner states that an Immigration Judge (IJ)
denied her application for withholding of removal and deferral
of removal on August 5, 2025, and that she filed a timely on
appeal on August 20, 2025.
Petitioner states that she requested a bond hearing
before an IJ after 180 days in detention, but the IJ denied her
requests. Petitioner further states that on January 6, 2025, her
mother, who is a lawful permanent resident, filed an I-130
petition on Petitioner’s behalf, which is currently pending.
(Doc. 3 at 2-3.) 	On August 15, 2025, Petitioner filed the pending Petition for Writ of
Habeas 	Corpus 	(the 	“Petition”) 	(Doc. 	1). 	The 	Court’s 	Screening 	Order recounts
Petitioner’s claims for relief as follows:
Petitioner contends her continued detention violates her
Fifth Amendment rights. Petitioner asserts that because she has
“signaled that [s]he will continue to appeal [her] case should
the BIA sustain the IJ’s decision,” the likelihood that her
detention will be “extensive” is increased. Petitioner asks the
Court to direct Respondents to immediately release her from
custody 	on 	her 	own 	recognizance 	or 	under 	reasonable
conditions of supervision, or, in the alternative, order that she
receive 	an 	individualized 	hearing 	before 	an 	impartial
adjudicator at which Respondents bear the burden of proving,
by clear and convincing evidence, that her continued detention
is justified.
(Doc. 3 at 3.) Respondents filed their Answer (Doc. 12) on September 29, 2025. Petitioner
did not file a Reply and the time to do has passed.
II. DISCUSSION
A federal court may grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 if a petitioner can demonstrate that he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.”
Case 2:25-cv-02951-MTL Document 14 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Here, Petitioner is being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), which
provides that if an asylum officer determines that an alien seeking asylum has a credible
fear of persecution, “the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application
for asylum.” (emphasis added.) “Once those proceedings end, detention under § 1225(b)
must end as well.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018). The Supreme Court
has held that an alien seeking admission to the United States “has only those rights
regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v.
Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1983 (2020). The Ninth Circuit, applying the Supreme
Court's holding in Thuraissigiam, has explicitly stated that, “[a]ccordingly, any rights [an
inadmissible alien] may have in regard to removal or admission are purely statutory in
nature and are not derived from, or protected by, the Constitution's Due Process Clause.”
Mendoza-Linares v. Garland, 51 F.4th 1146, 1167 (9th Cir. 2022). 	Ultimately, “[t]he
recognized liberty interests of U.S. citizens and aliens are not coextensive: the Supreme
Court has ‘firmly and repeatedly endorsed the proposition that Congress may make rules
as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.’” Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland,
53 F.4th 1189, 1206 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 522 (2003)).
Petitioner has not alleged that proceedings concerning her asylum application have
ended. The record establishes that Petitioner’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals
remains pending, with a briefing schedule issued on September 26, 2025. (Doc. 12-1 at 4,
¶¶ 20-21.) 	The undersigned finds that Respondents correctly assert that Petitioner’s
detention is mandatory under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). (Doc. 12 at 3); see, e.g., Zelaya-Gonzalez
v. Matuszewski, No. 23-CV-151 JLS (KSC), 2023 WL 3103811, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25,
2023) (“Petitioner does not contest . . . and the Court agrees, that Petitioner is being
detained under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). 	Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner has no
Fifth Amendment right to a bond hearing or to parole pending his removal proceedings.”).
It is noted that the Petition recounts that Petitioner has been detained since
December 2024. (Doc. 1 at 3.) However, the Supreme Court has explained that “nothing
in the statutory text [of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)] imposes any limit on the length of detention.”
Case 2:25-cv-02951-MTL Document 14 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jennings, 583 U.S. at 297. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that “neither § 1225(b)(1)
nor § 1225(b)(2) says anything whatsoever about bond hearings.” Id. Unlike aliens
detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), the detention of aliens detained pursuant to §
1225(b)(1) is not limited to six months. Id. at 300-01 (distinguishing Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678 (2001)).
The only exception to mandatory detention is discretionary parole. The Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security may release individual aliens temporarily on
“parole,” but “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant
public benefit.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). 	“That express exception to detention implies
that there are no other circumstances under which aliens detained under § 1225(b) may be
released.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 300 (emphasis in original). Whether to temporarily release
an alien for these reasons “is a discretionary decision of the Attorney General that is not
reviewable by this Court.” Andrade v. Cantu, No. CV-23-01462-PHX-DLR (CDB), 2023
WL 5934578, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2023) (quoting Lopez v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
No. CV-20-01063-PHX-JJT (MTM), 2021 WL 2079840, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2021)).
The Court therefore cannot review the denial of Petitioner’s request for humanitarian
parole.
For the above reasons,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court deny the Petition (Doc. 1).
This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 	Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall
have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation
within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. 	Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a
response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by
the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual
Case 2:25-cv-02951-MTL Document 14 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 	See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).
Dated this 10th day of November, 2025.
Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02951-MTL Document 14 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 5