Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jaime Cruz Orozco, a Mexican citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He remained in immigration custody without a final order of removal and sought release during the proceedings.
The district court noted that it had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. The petition was one of more than 700 such petitions filed in the court.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition, holding that binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Cruz Orozco’s claim to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Under Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, a person in removal proceedings who has not shown that he is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(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 Cruz Orozco’s due process rights. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent required treating Cruz Orozco’s detention during removal proceedings as mandatory under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Cruz Orozco was not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Binding en banc precedent foreclosed his due process challenge to mandatory detention.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory immigration detention before a final removal order. Within the Fifth Circuit, similarly situated detainees generally cannot obtain habeas relief based solely on the absence of a § 1226(a) bond hearing or a due process challenge to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).