Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alessandra Mora-Lopez, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained at the El Paso Processing Service Center. She had no final order of removal and sought release from immigration custody during the proceedings.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider her challenge to pre-removal-order detention. The central issues were whether Mora-Lopez was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and whether her continued mandatory detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Mora-Lopez’s claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because she had not shown that she was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) while her removal proceedings remained pending.
The court also rejected her due-process challenge. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it reasoned that detention during removal proceedings has a definite endpoint—the conclusion of those proceedings—and therefore is neither indefinite nor potentially permanent. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
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) during removal proceedings.
- Such a detainee is not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Pre-removal-order detention does not violate due process merely because it is mandatory and lacks a bond hearing, because the conclusion of removal proceedings supplies a definite termination point.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 Buenrostro-Mendez ruling to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory detention during ongoing removal proceedings. It confirms that, within the Western District of Texas, similarly situated detainees generally cannot obtain habeas relief based solely on the government’s failure to provide a bond hearing.