Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mei Ying Wu, a Chinese citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained at the El Paso Service Processing Center. She had no final removal order and sought release from immigration custody during the proceedings.
Wu challenged her detention on statutory and constitutional grounds, including an asserted entitlement to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). She also raised due-process, Administrative Procedure Act or Accardi, and Fourth Amendment claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Wu was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because she had not shown that she was clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission. That binding precedent foreclosed her claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
The court also rejected Wu’s constitutional and administrative claims. It held that her detention had a definite endpoint tied to the conclusion of removal proceedings and therefore was not indefinite or potentially permanent under Zadvydas and Demore. Because the statute mandated detention, the court found no unlawful final agency action supporting APA or Accardi relief. It further held that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to review arrest-related claims arising from the commencement of removal proceedings and that any alleged Fourth Amendment violation did not affect the legality of Wu’s current detention.
Key Takeaways
- Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, a person who is not clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings remain pending.
- Mandatory detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings did not violate due process because the detention had a definite termination point when those proceedings concluded.
- Arrest-related Fourth Amendment allegations did not support habeas relief from otherwise lawful immigration detention, and § 1252(g) barred review of claims arising from the decision to commence removal proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to foreclose bond-hearing claims by similarly situated immigration detainees in the Western District of Texas. It treats pre-final-order detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) as both mandatory and constitutionally permissible while removal proceedings are ongoing.
The opinion also limits alternative routes to release by rejecting APA and Accardi theories where detention is statutorily required and by distinguishing challenges to an arrest from challenges to the legality of continued custody.