Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Laurie Germain, a Haitian citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained at the El Paso Service Processing Center. Germain had no final order of removal and sought release from immigration custody during the proceedings.
The district court stated that it had jurisdiction over a challenge to pre-removal-order detention. It then considered whether Germain was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or whether mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applied, as well as whether detention without a bond hearing violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Germain’s claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because Germain had not shown that she was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the court concluded that she was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) during removal proceedings.
The court also rejected Germain’s due-process challenge. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it reasoned that pre-removal detention has a definite endpoint—the conclusion of removal proceedings followed by removal or release if the government fails to obtain a removal order—and therefore is neither indefinite nor potentially permanent. The court denied all pending motions as moot and ordered the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person who cannot show clear entitlement to admission may be detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing while removal proceedings remain pending.
- The court distinguished pre-removal detention from the potentially indefinite post-removal detention addressed in Zadvydas.
- Mandatory detention during removal proceedings did not violate due process because the proceedings supplied a definite termination point.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to foreclose statutory bond-hearing claims by similarly situated immigration detainees in the Western District of Texas. It also confirms the court’s view that Supreme Court precedent permits mandatory detention without bond while removal proceedings are ongoing.