of their prolonged detention. The Supreme Court outlined the history of the writ prior to the adoption of the Constitution as a means to protect the rights of the detained by affirming the duty and authority of the Judiciary to call the jailer to account. Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 745, 128 S.Ct. 2229. The Court described how the writ historically has served as a bulwark against tyranny by providing a judicial forum to protect against the practice of arbitrary imprisonments. See id. at 744, 128 S.Ct. 2229. Here, Petitioner is challenging the legality of her expedited removal from the United States, not her detention. Her detention is merely the constitutionally permissible part of that process. See Demore v. Hyung Joon Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the separation-of-powers
recognizing detention during deportation proceedings as a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings holding that being placed in removal proceedings rather than deportation proceedings does not violate a petitioners due process rights holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings holding that no deportation order may be entered unless it is found by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true