Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Olga Balbuena-Torres, a Mexican citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She remained in immigration custody without a final removal order and sought release or relief based on the absence of a bond hearing.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider a constitutional challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. The court evaluated whether Balbuena-Torres was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or whether she instead was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and whether detention without a bond hearing violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Balbuena-Torres’s argument that she was unlawfully detained without a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because she had not shown that she was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” she was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while her removal proceedings remained pending.
The court also rejected her due-process claim. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it reasoned that detention during removal proceedings has a definite endpoint—the conclusion of those proceedings, followed either by removal or release if the government fails to secure a removal order—and therefore is not indefinite or potentially permanent. 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 in removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission may be detained mandatorily under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Such a detainee is not entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- Mandatory detention during ongoing removal proceedings does not violate due process merely because it occurs without a bond hearing, where the detention has a definite termination point.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order detention without a bond hearing. For immigration detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the ruling illustrates how that Fifth Circuit precedent limits habeas relief for individuals held under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The opinion also distinguishes detention during removal proceedings from potentially indefinite detention after a removal order. Its reasoning treats the eventual conclusion of removal proceedings as the constitutionally significant endpoint, even when no bond hearing is available in the meantime.