Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anabel Cardenas Gonzalez, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She remained in immigration custody without a final removal order and sought release during the proceedings.
The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction over a Section 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. It then considered whether Cardenas Gonzalez was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or whether she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Cardenas Gonzalez was subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) because she had not shown that she was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” That binding precedent foreclosed her claim to a bond hearing under Section 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 Section 1225(b)(2)(A) violated her due-process rights. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court separately noted that, if Cardenas Gonzalez had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing suit, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show that she is 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 the petitioner’s claim to a Section 1226(a) bond hearing and her due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
- The court denied the Section 2241 petition, denied all pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies two recent Fifth Circuit decisions to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order detention. For similarly situated immigration detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those precedents substantially limit the availability of habeas relief based on the absence of a bond hearing.