Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hosman Jose Dias Zarraga, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody. He had no final order of removal, and the parties had not informed the court that he had subsequently received one, been removed, or been released.
Dias Zarraga challenged his detention without a bond hearing under the immigration statutes and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He also asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act or United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy and raised a Fourth Amendment challenge concerning his arrest.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Dias Zarraga was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he had not shown that he was clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission. That binding precedent foreclosed his claim to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The court also rejected the due-process challenge because detention during removal proceedings has a definite endpoint—the conclusion of those proceedings—and therefore was not indefinite or potentially permanent under Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim. It rejected the APA and Accardi theories because the statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action to review. Finally, the court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived it of jurisdiction over claims arising from the decision to commence removal proceedings and that any alleged Fourth Amendment violation concerning the arrest did not affect the legality of detention under § 1225(b). The court denied all pending motions as moot and ordered the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings remain pending.
- Pre-removal-order detention without a bond hearing does not violate due process merely because it continues during removal proceedings; the court treated the proceedings’ conclusion as a definite termination point.
- Challenges to an immigration arrest do not establish entitlement to habeas release when the petitioner is otherwise lawfully detained, and § 1252(g) restricts district-court review of claims arising from the decision to commence removal proceedings.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies Buenrostro-Mendez to foreclose statutory and constitutional demands for bond hearings by similarly situated immigration detainees in the Fifth Circuit. It also limits efforts to obtain habeas relief through APA, Accardi, or Fourth Amendment theories when § 1225(b)(2)(A) independently mandates detention during ongoing removal proceedings.