Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tehseen Haider, a citizen of Pakistan, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody while removal proceedings remained pending. He was not subject to a final order of removal.
Haider challenged his detention without a bond hearing, invoking 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act and/or United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy. The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction over a Section 2241 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 Haider’s claim to a bond hearing under Section 1226(a). Because Haider had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” Section 1225(b)(2)(A) required his detention during removal proceedings.
The court also rejected Haider’s due-process challenge. Relying on Demore v. Kim and distinguishing Zadvydas v. Davis, it concluded that detention during ongoing removal proceedings has a definite endpoint and is neither indefinite nor potentially permanent. The APA and Accardi theory 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, an applicant who is not clearly entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings are pending.
- Mandatory detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings does not violate due process merely because the proceedings remain ongoing, where detention has a definite termination point.
- An APA or Accardi claim cannot overcome detention expressly required by the governing immigration statute.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject statutory, constitutional, and administrative-law challenges to pre-removal-order detention without a bond hearing. It confirms that, in the Western District of Texas, detainees covered by Section 1225(b)(2)(A) cannot obtain habeas relief merely by arguing that they should instead receive a discretionary bond hearing under Section 1226(a).
The ruling also underscores the distinction between detention during removal proceedings, which ends when those proceedings conclude, and potentially indefinite detention after a final removal order when removal cannot be accomplished.