OPINION

KEVIN McMULTY, District Judge.

This matter comes before me upon the pro se application (the "Petition") of the Petitioner, Christopher George Harris, for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1) Mr. Harris, an alien detainee, is a native and citizen of Jamaica. (ECF No. 1-1, at 1.) The Petition states that, on May 24, 2011, Harris was taken into the custody of immigration authorities in connection with his removal proceedings, and that he "lost [his] case on [M]ay 24th 2013." (Id. at 1 and 3.) According to Harris, he has not committed any criminal offense in the United States; his removal proceedings have been based solely on his having overstayed his visa. (ECF No. 1-1, at 9.)

Harris alleges that, if he were removed to his native Jamaica, he would be exposed to life-threatening gang violence. He also details his health problems, the hardship he would face if removed to Jamaica and the financial support he has been providing to his children, who are United States citizens. (ECF No. 1-1.) He requests release from custody, citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) . (ECF No. 1, at 3-4)

In response to my request, Respondents have filed a short statement clarifying the procedural status of Harris's removal proceedings. (ECF No. 3) According to Respondents

• Harris was ordered removed from the United States by an immigration judge on May 24, 2013;

• Harris's appeal from that order is currently pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"); and

• Harris has not received, and perhaps has not requested, a. Joseph hearing in which it may be determined whether he falls within any of the categories of aliens subject to mandatory detention.1

Because Harris's appeal is still pending before the BIA, his order of removal is not final. It will not become final unless and until it is affirmed by the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B). Thus the options that lie ahead for Harris, currently a preremoval detainee, include the following:

Pre-removal detention and a bond hearing

Pre-removal detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Subsection (a) of § 1226 provides: "Except as provided in subsection (c) and pending such decision, the Attorney General . . . may release the alien on . . . bond of at least $1,500 . . . or . . . conditional parole." 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Essentially, a pre-removal detainee who is eligible to be considered for release on bond under subsection (a) is one who is not detained based on commission of a crime. Under section (a), such an alien is entitled to a bond hearing without the need for a court order.2

Harris states that his detention and threatened removal are not based on the commission of a crime, but only upon his having overstayed his visa. If that is so, he may seek a bond hearing without any need for action on my part. If he requests, but is wrongfully denied, a bond hearing, he may ask this Court to order that such a hearing be held. After a bona fide bond hearing, the immigration judge might grant, or deny, release on bond. I would not have the power to overrule such a denial of release after a bona fide hearing.3

Post-removal detention and Zadvydas

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the case cited by Petitioner Harris, governs only post-removal detainees, i.e., aliens whose orders of removal have become final. If the BIA affirms Harris's removal order and it becomes final, he may seek release from detention pending his removal from the country. In Zadvydas, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a rule of thumb that a post-removal detention of up to six months is reasonable, but that release may be required after that time. Id.; see also Hany, supra, at *8, 12-14.

Appeal from a final order of removal

Finally, it appears that Harris wishes to challenge his removal to Jamaica because he foresees gang violence or hardship to himself and his family. Such grounds may be asserted on appeal from a final order of removal. Such an appeal must be filed in the Court of Appeals, not in this District Court. See REAL ID Act, Pub L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005). If and when the BIA affirms Harris's order of removal and it becomes final, he may file an appeal in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I will dismiss the Petition, without prejudice to Petitioner's assertion of his claims at the proper time in the proper forum. An appropriate Order accompanies this opinion.