Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eber Rodriguez Espino, a Mexican citizen in removal proceedings without a final removal order, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He sought release from immigration custody during those proceedings.
The district court explained that it had jurisdiction to review a challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. Rodriguez Espino asserted that his detention was unlawful under the immigration statutes, violated due process, and supported relief under the Administrative Procedure Act or United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy.
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 Espino was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” That binding precedent foreclosed his argument that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the claim that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. His APA or Accardi claim also failed because the governing statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action for the court to review. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
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 a claimed entitlement to a § 1226(a) bond hearing and a due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- The APA and Accardi theories failed because the statute itself required detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action to set aside.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory, constitutional, and administrative-law challenges to pre-removal-order detention. For similarly situated petitioners in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those precedents sharply limit habeas claims seeking a bond hearing or release while removal proceedings remain pending.