Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dalianny de la Caridad Hector-Gonzalez, a Cuban citizen detained during removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court stated that she had no final removal order when the action was filed, although an immigration judge ordered her removed on October 6, 2026, and her appeal deadline was November 5, 2026.
Hector-Gonzalez sought relief from immigration custody, asserting claims concerning entitlement to a bond hearing, due process, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Accardi doctrine, equal protection, and the Suspension Clause. The court considered those claims against recently issued Fifth Circuit precedent governing detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed the argument that Hector-Gonzalez was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because she had not shown that she was clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission, § 1225(b)(2)(A) required her detention during removal proceedings. The Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara likewise foreclosed her due-process challenge to that mandatory detention.
The court also rejected the APA and Accardi claims because the governing statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action to review. It rejected the equal-protection claim because people detained under § 1225 after entering without inspection or being present without admission were not similarly situated to § 1226 detainees such as visa overstayers, and because mandatory detention was rationally related to preventing applicants for admission from absconding during removal proceedings.
Finally, the court held that the Suspension Clause was not violated because courts remained available to adjudicate habeas petitions challenging detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A); 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 further stated that if Hector-Gonzalez had since received a final removal order, been removed, or been released, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who cannot show that she is clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention with a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- The Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- The availability of judicial review through habeas proceedings defeats a Suspension Clause claim even when the court ultimately denies habeas relief on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject several constitutional and administrative-law theories commonly raised by noncitizens seeking release or bond hearings during removal proceedings. For district courts within the Fifth Circuit, those precedents substantially constrain challenges to pre-final-order detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The ruling also distinguishes between noncitizens detained under §§ 1225 and 1226 for equal-protection purposes and concludes that preventing applicants for admission from absconding supplies a rational basis for mandatory detention.