Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nexier Castillo Izquierdo, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings without a final removal order, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction to consider a challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention.
Castillo Izquierdo challenged his detention under the immigration statutes and the Due Process Clause and also raised claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, and the Fourth Amendment. The court addressed whether he was entitled to a bond hearing or release while his removal proceedings remained pending.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Castillo Izquierdo 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 admission. That binding precedent foreclosed his argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) entitled him to a bond hearing.
The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Because the statute required detention, the APA and Accardi theories did not identify a final unlawful agency action for review. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to review arrest-related claims arising from the decision to commence removal proceedings and that an alleged Fourth Amendment violation would not affect the legality of detention pending removal proceedings.
The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. It added that if Castillo Izquierdo had since received a final removal order, been removed, or been released, the petition was denied as moot because the requested habeas relief could no longer be provided.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who cannot show that he is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) during removal proceedings.
- The Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to that mandatory detention.
- Arrest-related and Fourth Amendment allegations did not provide a basis for habeas relief from otherwise lawful mandatory immigration detention.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order detention. For habeas petitioners in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those precedents substantially limit arguments for a bond hearing or release when § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs.
The opinion also distinguishes challenges to the legality of ongoing custody from claims concerning how immigration proceedings began. Even an allegedly unlawful arrest does not, without more, make detention under the applicable mandatory-detention statute unlawful.