Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jesus Cardoza-Lozano, a Mexican citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody. He was not subject to a final removal order when the action was filed.
The case was one of more than 700 habeas petitions filed in the Western District of Texas by people seeking release from immigration detention during removal proceedings. The district 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. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Cardoza-Lozano’s argument that he was unlawfully detained without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because he was not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” 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 Cardoza-Lozano’s due process rights. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed both the statutory claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and the due process challenge to mandatory detention.
- The district court retained jurisdiction under § 2241 to review the challenge but rejected it on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal immigration detention. It signals that similarly situated petitioners in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi generally cannot obtain a bond hearing or release on these theories while those precedents control.