De Los Santos Valier v. Blanche — Court denied habeas relief from mandatory immigration detention

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Luis Alberto De Los Santos Valier, a Mexican citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He remained in immigration custody without a final order of removal and sought release during the proceedings.

The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction over a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. The petition was one of more than 700 such petitions filed in the court seeking release from immigration custody.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that De Los Santos Valier was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” That precedent foreclosed his claim that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed any argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court further stated that if De Los Santos Valier had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.

Key Takeaways

• A federal district court may exercise jurisdiction over a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention.
• Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person in removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention with a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
• The Fifth Circuit’s en banc precedent foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

Why It Matters

The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory immigration detention. In district courts within the Fifth Circuit, similarly situated noncitizens cannot obtain habeas relief based solely on the absence of a § 1226(a) bond hearing or a due-process challenge to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).