Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yinmy E. Troconis-Colmenares, a Venezuelan citizen detained while removal proceedings remained pending, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. No final removal order had been entered. The petition was among more than 700 cases filed in the district seeking release from immigration custody during removal proceedings.
Troconis-Colmenares challenged detention without a bond hearing, asserting statutory and due-process grounds and invoking the Administrative Procedure Act and United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy. The district court had jurisdiction to consider the challenge to pre-removal-order detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed the argument that Troconis-Colmenares was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because the petitioner had not shown clear entitlement to admission, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) required detention during the removal proceedings.
The court also rejected the constitutional challenge. Unlike the potentially indefinite post-removal detention addressed in Zadvydas v. Davis, detention during ongoing removal proceedings has a definite endpoint and is constitutionally permissible under Demore v. Kim. The APA and Accardi claim likewise failed because the governing statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action to review. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person who is not clearly entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings are pending.
- The court held that pre-removal detention without a bond hearing was not unconstitutional because the conclusion of removal proceedings provides a definite endpoint.
- The APA and Accardi theories could not overcome the statutory detention mandate or identify a reviewable final unlawful agency action.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject statutory, constitutional, and administrative-law challenges to mandatory detention during removal proceedings. It signals that, within the Fifth Circuit, similarly situated detainees generally cannot obtain bond hearings by characterizing § 1225(b)(2)(A) detention as unlawful under § 1226(a).
The ruling also distinguishes detention pending a removability determination from potentially indefinite detention after a final removal order, making the procedural stage of the immigration case central to the due-process analysis.