Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Fidel Leal-Barrera, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while in immigration custody. The parties had not informed the court that he was subject to a final removal order, had been removed, or had otherwise been released.
Leal-Barrera challenged his detention under the federal immigration statutes and asserted due-process and Administrative Procedure Act and/or Accardi claims. The district court had jurisdiction to consider his challenge to pre-removal-order detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed the argument that Leal-Barrera was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) required his detention during removal proceedings.
The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed Leal-Barrera’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). His APA and Accardi claims also failed because the statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action for the court to review. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings remain pending.
- The Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to that mandatory detention.
- APA and Accardi theories could not overcome the statutory detention mandate because there was no final unlawful agency action to review.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory, constitutional, and administrative-law challenges to pre-removal-order detention. For immigration habeas cases within the Fifth Circuit, those precedents substantially limit efforts to obtain bond hearings or release for individuals detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A).