Aykut v. Blanche — Court denied habeas relief from mandatory immigration detention

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Muhammed Aykut, a citizen of Türkiye, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody while his removal proceedings remained pending. He was not subject to a final order of removal when the case was filed.

Aykut challenged his detention on statutory and constitutional grounds. His claims included entitlement to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), a due-process challenge to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, and a Suspension Clause challenge.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Aykut’s argument that he was entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because Aykut had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” § 1225(b)(2)(A) required his detention during removal proceedings.

The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed Aykut’s due-process challenge. His APA and Accardi claims failed because the governing statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action for review. The Suspension Clause claim also failed because habeas review remained available; denial of relief on the merits did not amount to suspension of the writ.

The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. It also stated that if Aykut had received a final removal order, been removed, or been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.

Key Takeaways

• Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who is not clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings are pending.
• Buenrostro-Mendez foreclosed Aykut’s statutory claim to a bond hearing, and the en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed his due-process challenge.
• The availability of habeas review defeats a Suspension Clause claim even when the court ultimately denies habeas relief on the merits.

Why It Matters

The decision applies two recent, binding 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 bond hearings or release on the theories foreclosed by those precedents.

The ruling also distinguishes the availability of habeas review from success on a habeas claim: an adverse merits decision does not itself establish that the writ has been suspended.