Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jarin Jondany Carbayo-Posadas, a Honduran citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained in immigration custody. He had no final removal order, and the parties had not informed the court that he had since received one, been removed, or been released.
The petition was one of more than 700 filed in the district seeking release from immigration detention during removal proceedings. The court recognized that it had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Carbayo-Posadas’s claim that his custody violated federal law because he had not received a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission, he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(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 Carbayo-Posadas had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show that he is clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed the petitioner’s claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Fifth Circuit en banc precedent also 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 pre-removal-order immigration detention. Within the Fifth Circuit, detainees covered by § 1225(b)(2)(A) cannot obtain habeas relief merely by asserting a right to a § 1226(a) bond hearing or a due-process right against mandatory detention.