Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Osman Jose Burgos Jarquin, a Nicaraguan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He had no final order of removal and sought release from immigration custody during the proceedings.
The petition challenged his detention on statutory and due-process grounds and also asserted claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, and the Fourth Amendment. The district court had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Burgos Jarquin 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 admission. That precedent foreclosed his argument that he was entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the due-process challenge to mandatory detention. The APA and Accardi theories failed because the statute required detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action to review. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to review arrest-related claims arising from the decision to commence removal proceedings and that any alleged Fourth Amendment violation did not affect the legality of detention during those proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings are pending.
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed both the request for a § 1226(a) bond hearing and the due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
- Alleged defects in an immigration arrest do not, without more, invalidate detention pending removal proceedings, and § 1252(g) restricts district-court review of claims arising from the commencement of those proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention. In Texas federal courts, detainees covered by § 1225(b)(2)(A) cannot obtain a bond hearing or release through § 2241 on the theories rejected here.
The ruling also limits efforts to reframe detention challenges as APA, Accardi, or Fourth Amendment claims when the governing statute mandates custody and the alleged arrest violation does not bear on the legality of continued detention.