Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rosmery Elles Mendez, a Colombian citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody. She was not subject to a final removal order when the action was filed.
The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction over a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. The dispute concerned whether Elles Mendez was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or instead was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and whether that detention violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Elles Mendez was subject to mandatory detention under § 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 § 1226(a).
The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court further stated that if Elles Mendez had since received a final removal order, been removed, or been released, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Controlling en banc Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings that sharply limit habeas challenges seeking bond hearings or release from pre-removal-order immigration detention. In district courts within the Fifth Circuit, similarly situated petitioners cannot obtain relief by recasting § 1225(b)(2)(A) detention as discretionary detention under § 1226(a) or by asserting that the mandatory-detention provision itself violates due process.