Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Laurimar Gonzalez Godoy, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She remained in immigration custody without a final order of removal and sought release during the proceedings.
The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. The dispute centered on whether Gonzalez Godoy was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and whether her 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 Gonzalez Godoy was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because she was in removal proceedings and 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 her due process rights. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court further stated that if Gonzalez Godoy had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Buenrostro-Mendez foreclosed Gonzalez Godoy’s claim that she was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed her due process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory immigration detention. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those precedents substantially limit habeas claims seeking bond hearings or release during removal proceedings.
The brief order also reflects the district court’s handling of a large volume of comparable immigration habeas petitions: it noted that more than 700 such petitions had been filed seeking release from custody during removal proceedings.