Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eduardo Jose Baez-Rivera, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained during removal proceedings. He had no final order of removal because his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal determination remained pending.
Baez-Rivera challenged his continued custody without a bond hearing. The district court had jurisdiction to consider his challenge to pre-removal-order detention, but Fifth Circuit precedent issued in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi governed whether he was statutorily entitled to a bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the amended habeas petition. It held that Baez-Rivera was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, he therefore could not obtain a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The court also rejected Baez-Rivera’s due-process claim. Distinguishing the potentially indefinite post-removal-order detention addressed in Zadvydas v. Davis, the court reasoned that detention during ongoing removal proceedings has a definite endpoint when those proceedings conclude. Relying on Demore v. Kim, it held that mandatory detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- In the Fifth Circuit, a noncitizen 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.
- Such a detainee is not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) merely because the removal proceedings are ongoing.
- The court found no due-process violation because pre-removal-order detention ends with the conclusion of removal proceedings and therefore is not indefinite or potentially permanent.
Why It Matters
The decision applies controlling Fifth Circuit precedent to deny bond-hearing claims by noncitizens detained during removal proceedings under § 1225(b)(2)(A). It also reinforces the constitutional distinction between detention pending a removability determination and potentially indefinite detention after a final removal order.