Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eduardo Abiu Aragoza Lopez, a Venezuelan citizen detained during ongoing removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He had no final order of removal and sought release from immigration custody.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider his challenge to pre-removal-order detention. The dispute concerned whether Lopez was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or whether he instead was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and whether detention without a bond hearing violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Lopez’s claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because Lopez had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the court concluded that § 1225(b)(2)(A) required his detention during removal proceedings.
The court also rejected Lopez’s due-process challenge. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it reasoned that detention during removal proceedings has a definite endpoint—the proceedings will conclude in either a removal order followed by removal or release if the government fails to secure an order. The detention therefore was not indefinite or potentially permanent, and mandatory detention without a bond hearing during the proceedings was constitutionally permissible.
The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. It added that if Lopez had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing suit, the petition was denied as moot because the requested relief could no longer be granted.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show that he is clearly entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a).
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a detainee held under § 1225(b)(2)(A) is not entitled to a § 1226(a) bond hearing.
- The court held that pre-removal-order detention has a definite termination point and therefore does not present the indefinite-detention problem addressed in Zadvydas.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 Buenrostro-Mendez ruling to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory immigration detention during removal proceedings. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the ruling indicates that § 2241 petitions seeking bond hearings under § 1226(a) are foreclosed when § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs.
The opinion also treats the conclusion of removal proceedings as a sufficiently definite endpoint for due-process purposes, distinguishing pre-order detention from potentially indefinite detention after a final removal order.