Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Danny Domingo Pichardo Calderon Arauz, a Nicaraguan citizen in immigration custody, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while removal proceedings were pending. The immigration court had ordered him removed on August 6, 2026, but his appeal remained pending, so he did not have a final removal order.
The petition was among more than 700 filed in the district seeking release from immigration custody during removal proceedings. The court had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention. It also noted that if Arauz had since been removed, released, or made subject to a final removal order, the petition would be denied as moot.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Arauz 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 be admitted.” That binding precedent foreclosed his claim to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed any argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated Arauz’s due-process rights. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in ongoing removal proceedings who cannot establish a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
- That precedent foreclosed Arauz’s statutory claim for a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Binding en banc Fifth Circuit authority also foreclosed his due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies two recent Fifth Circuit decisions to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those decisions substantially limit the availability of habeas relief seeking a bond hearing or release.