Maria Guzman Chavez v. Russell Hott, 940 F.3d 867

Background

A class of noncitizens with reinstated removal orders were detained while pursuing withholding-only proceedings after asylum officers found a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture.
Reinstated removal orders generally cannot be reopened or reviewed, but withholding-only proceedings permit country-specific claims that can bar removal to the designated country.
Petitioners sought individualized bond hearings (release eligibility) under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 during their withholding-only proceedings; the government asserted detention authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1231.
The district court certified a Virginia-wide class and granted summary judgment for petitioners, holding § 1226 governs because a decision whether they “are to be removed” remains pending while withholding-only proceedings continue.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding § 1226 applies and entitles detainees to individualized bond hearings though release remains discretionary.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute governs detention of noncitizens in withholding-only proceedings?	Petitioners: §1226 applies because a decision whether they “are to be removed” is still pending until withholding proceedings conclude, so they are entitled to bond hearings.	Government: §1231 applies because reinstated removal orders are “orders of removal” that are administratively final under §1231(a)(5), triggering the 90‑day removal period and (then) §1231 detention rules.	§1226 governs during withholding-only proceedings; detainees are entitled to individualized bond hearings.
Is a reinstated removal order “administratively final” for §1231 while withholding-only proceedings are pending?	Petitioners: No—finality for execution/detention requires completion of proceedings affecting whether removal can be executed to a given country.	Government: Yes—the reinstated order is final because it reinstates the prior, unreviewable removal order.	The court rejects a bifurcated finality; reinstated orders are not treated as triggering §1231’s removal period while withholding-only proceedings (which limit ability to execute removal) are pending.
Do withholding-only proceedings merely decide “where” (not “whether”) an alien will be removed, leaving §1231 applicable?	Petitioners: “Where” and “whether” are intertwined because statutory limits on third-country removal and the absolute bar on removal to a country with persecution/torture mean the government lacks present legal authority to execute removal until proceedings finish.	Government: Withholding-only claims concern only the destination, not removability, so §1226’s “whether” language is inapplicable.	Court adopts petitioners’ view: practical and legal constraints on removal location can prevent the government from having present authority to remove, so §1226 applies.
Is Chevron deference appropriate to agency regulations on this point?	Petitioners: Regulations do not resolve whether §1226 or §1231 governs; courts must interpret statutes.	Government: Defer to agency rulemaking.	Courts are unanimous that cited regulations do not resolve the conflict; Chevron deference is inapplicable here.

Key Cases Cited

Guerra v. Shanahan, 831 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2016) (held §1226 applies to detainees in withholding-only proceedings)
Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 905 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2018) (held §1231 governs detention of reinstated-order detainees)
Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, 882 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2017) (held §1231 governs; adopted bifurcated finality approach)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (construes limits on post-removal-period detention under §1231(a)(6))
Romero v. Evans, 280 F. Supp. 3d 835 (E.D. Va. 2017) (district court decision holding §1226 governs; affirmed below)
Mejia v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 573 (4th Cir. 2017) (discusses finality and timing for petitions for review of reinstated orders)
Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2018) (explains mandatory nature of withholding when persecution standard met)
Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113 (4th Cir. 2007) (same point on withholding relief)