Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sow Alassane, a citizen of Mauritania, 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. The parties had not informed the court that Alassane was subject to a final removal order, had been removed, or had otherwise been released.
Alassane challenged his detention on statutory and constitutional grounds, including arguments under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the Due Process and Suspension Clauses, the Administrative Procedure Act, and United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy. 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 habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Alassane’s claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because Alassane had not shown that he was clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission, the court concluded that § 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 Alassane’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). His APA and Accardi theories also failed because the governing statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action for review.
Finally, the court rejected the Suspension Clause claim because federal courts remained open to 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 also stated that if Alassane had received a final removal order, been removed, or been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in pending removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The Fifth Circuit’s en banc Sosnava Rodriguez decision foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to that mandatory detention.
- Unsuccessful access to habeas relief on the merits does not establish a Suspension Clause violation when courts remain available to hear the petition.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention. Within the Fifth Circuit, those precedents substantially limit the ability of similarly situated detainees to obtain bond hearings or release through § 2241 petitions.
The opinion also makes clear that repackaging the detention challenge under the APA, Accardi, or the Suspension Clause does not avoid the controlling conclusion that § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention during removal proceedings.