Aguilar v. Department of Homeland Security — Court denied habeas relief from mandatory immigration detention

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Ruvicelia Aguilar, a Mexican citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody. She had no final order of removal when the case was filed.

The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction to consider a constitutional or statutory challenge to pre-removal-order detention. Aguilar’s petition was one of more than 700 similar immigration habeas petitions filed in the court.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Aguilar was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because she had not shown that she was clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission. That precedent foreclosed her argument that she was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed any claim that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated Aguilar’s due process rights. The court denied all pending motions as moot and ordered the case closed. It further stated that if Aguilar had received a final removal order, been removed, or been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.

Key Takeaways

• Noncitizens who cannot show they are clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings remain pending.
• Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Aguilar’s request for a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
• The Fifth Circuit’s en banc precedent also foreclosed Aguilar’s due process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates how recent Fifth Circuit rulings control challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention in federal district courts across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Under those precedents, similarly situated detainees generally cannot obtain bond hearings or release by arguing that detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates due process.