Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Noelkis Adiren Llano Delgado, a Cuban citizen detained during removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Delgado had no final order of removal and sought release from immigration custody.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider a challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. The petition was one of more than 700 such habeas petitions filed in the court.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition, holding that binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Delgado’s claim to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Under Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, Delgado was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because Delgado had not shown an entitlement to admission that was clear beyond doubt.
The court also held that Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, a recent en banc Fifth Circuit decision, foreclosed the argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. It further stated that if Delgado had become subject to a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who is not clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Delgado’s statutory claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Fifth Circuit precedent also foreclosed the due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Why It Matters
The decision applies two 2026 Fifth Circuit rulings to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order detention. In district courts within the Fifth Circuit, similarly situated detainees cannot obtain habeas relief based solely on claims that § 1226(a) requires a bond hearing or that detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates due process.