Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Samuel Aaron Cabrera Acevedo, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He had no final removal order and sought release from immigration custody, arguing that his detention without a bond hearing violated federal law and the Constitution.
The district court considered whether Cabrera Acevedo was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or § 1226, whether mandatory detention during ongoing removal proceedings violated due process, and whether the government’s actions were reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act or United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Cabrera Acevedo’s claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” § 1225(b)(2)(A) required his detention during removal proceedings.
The court also rejected the due-process challenge, reasoning under Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim that detention pending the conclusion of removal proceedings has a definite endpoint and is neither indefinite nor potentially permanent. It further rejected the APA and Accardi claim because § 1225(b)(2)(A), as interpreted by binding Fifth Circuit precedent, mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action to review. The court denied all pending motions as moot and ordered the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who cannot establish that he is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings remain pending.
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed the petitioner’s attempt to obtain a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Mandatory detention during removal proceedings did not violate due process because it ends when those proceedings conclude and therefore was not indefinite or potentially permanent.
- The APA and Accardi theories failed because the governing statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action for the court to set aside.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-final-order immigration detention in the Western District of Texas. It confirms that detainees covered by § 1225(b)(2)(A) cannot obtain a bond hearing merely by invoking § 1226(a).
The opinion also draws a firm distinction between detention during removal proceedings and potentially indefinite detention after a final removal order, limiting the reach of Zadvydas-based due-process arguments in pre-removal-order cases.