Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Zoila I. Castillo Rodriguez, a Guatemalan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She remained in immigration custody and, according to the information before the court, had not received a final order of removal.
The petition was one of more than 700 filed in the district seeking release from immigration custody 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 petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Castillo Rodriguez 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 a doubt entitled to be admitted.” That binding precedent foreclosed her claim 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 added that if Castillo Rodriguez had become subject to a final removal order, had been removed, or had otherwise been released, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed both the petitioner’s request for a § 1226(a) bond hearing and her due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
- The district court denied the § 2241 petition, denied pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory pre-removal-order detention. It indicates that similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi cannot obtain habeas relief based solely on the asserted absence of a bond hearing under § 1226(a) or a due-process challenge to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).