Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Magdalena Raymundo, a Guatemalan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She remained in immigration custody and had no final order of removal.
Raymundo challenged her detention without a bond hearing. The district court considered whether she was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and whether mandatory detention during her removal proceedings violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Raymundo’s statutory claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because she had not shown that she was clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission, the court concluded that § 1225(b)(2)(A) required her detention during removal proceedings.
The court also rejected Raymundo’s due-process claim. Relying principally on Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it reasoned that her detention was not indefinite or potentially permanent because it had a definite endpoint: the conclusion of removal proceedings, followed by either removal or release if the government failed to obtain a removal order. 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 and beyond a doubt entitled to admission may be subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings remain pending.
- The court held that Raymundo had no statutory right to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Mandatory detention during ongoing removal proceedings did not violate due process because the proceedings supplied a definite termination point.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to detention without a bond hearing while removal proceedings are ongoing. It underscores the distinction between pre-final-order detention, which ends with the removal proceedings, and potentially indefinite detention after entry of a removal order.
The ruling also signals that similarly situated immigration detainees in the Fifth Circuit will face a substantial barrier to obtaining habeas relief based solely on the absence of a bond hearing.