Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Henris Anael Gomez Quintanilla, a Honduran citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody. He was not subject to a final removal order, and the parties had not advised the court that he had been removed or released.
The petition challenged his continued detention without a bond hearing, including on due-process grounds and under the Administrative Procedure Act and United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy. The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition, holding that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Gomez Quintanilla’s contention that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the court concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) required his detention while removal proceedings remained pending.
The court also rejected the due-process challenge. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it reasoned that detention during pending removal proceedings has a definite endpoint—the conclusion of those proceedings—and therefore is not indefinite or potentially permanent. The APA and Accardi claim likewise failed because the governing statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action for the court to set aside.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person who is not clearly entitled to admission may be detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) throughout removal proceedings without a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- The court held that pre-removal-order detention did not violate due process because removal proceedings provide a definite termination point.
- Because federal law mandated the detention, the court found no actionable APA or Accardi violation and denied all pending motions as moot.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory detention during ongoing removal proceedings. For immigration habeas practitioners in the Fifth Circuit, it underscores that challenges premised solely on the absence of a bond hearing face binding precedent when § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs.
The court denied habeas relief and ordered the case closed, while noting that the petition would alternatively be moot if Gomez Quintanilla had since received a final removal order, been removed, or been released.