Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ottoniela Alvarado, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while held in immigration custody. She was not subject to a final removal order, and the court had jurisdiction to consider her challenge to pre-removal-order detention.
Alvarado sought release from custody during her removal proceedings, contending that her detention without a bond hearing violated federal immigration law or the Constitution. Her petition was one of more than 700 similar immigration-custody habeas petitions filed in the Western District of Texas.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Alvarado 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 binding precedent foreclosed her claim that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) entitled her to a bond hearing.
The court also 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 Alvarado’s due-process rights. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court further stated that if Alvarado had received a final removal order, been removed, or been released after filing suit, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show that she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, § 1226(a) does not entitle such a detainee to a bond hearing.
- Fifth Circuit precedent also forecloses a due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Why It Matters
The ruling applies two recent Fifth Circuit decisions to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal immigration detention. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those precedents substantially limit habeas claims seeking bond hearings or release while removal proceedings remain pending.