Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gabriela Almeida Campos, a Brazilian native and Portuguese citizen, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody while removal proceedings remained pending. She had no final order of removal.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider her challenge to pre-removal-order detention. Campos contended that her detention without a bond hearing violated federal law or the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed any claim that Campos was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because she had not shown that she was clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission, she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) during her removal proceedings.
The court also rejected the due-process challenge. Relying principally on Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it reasoned that detention during ongoing removal proceedings has a definite endpoint—the conclusion of those proceedings, followed by removal if ordered or release if the government fails to obtain a removal order. The court therefore concluded that Campos’s detention was neither indefinite nor potentially permanent and that mandatory detention without a bond hearing was constitutional in these circumstances. It denied all pending motions as moot and ordered the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings are pending.
- The court held that Campos had no statutory right to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Detention pending completion of removal proceedings did not violate due process because it had a definite termination point and was not indefinite or potentially permanent.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory immigration detention during removal proceedings. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the ruling underscores that a request for a § 1226(a) bond hearing is foreclosed when § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs.
The opinion also distinguishes pre-removal detention from potentially indefinite detention after a final removal order. Its reasoning treats the conclusion of removal proceedings as a sufficient endpoint to defeat a due-process claim based on detention without a bond hearing.