Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wenndy Francinny Rodriguez Bent, a Nicaraguan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She remained in immigration custody and, according to the record before the court, was not subject to a final removal order.
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 habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Rodriguez Bent 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 precedent foreclosed her claim that she 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 Rodriguez Bent’s due process rights. It 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 § 1225(b)(2)(A) under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Fifth Circuit precedent also foreclosed the petitioner’s due process challenge to mandatory detention.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies two recent Fifth Circuit decisions to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal immigration detention. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those decisions sharply limit habeas claims seeking bond hearings or release from custody under these theories.