Castro Carias v. Warden ERO El Paso Camp East Montana — Habeas petition seeking release from immigration detention denied

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Yajaira Gabriela Castro Carias, a Honduran citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained in immigration custody. She was not subject to a final order of removal.

The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. Castro Carias sought relief from custody during her removal proceedings, including on the theory that she was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that mandatory detention violated due process.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court held that Castro Carias 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 be admitted.” That binding precedent foreclosed her argument that the absence of a bond hearing under § 1226(a) made her custody unlawful.

The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the claim that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. It also denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court noted that if Castro Carias had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing, the petition was alternatively denied as moot.

Key Takeaways

• A district court may exercise § 2241 jurisdiction over a challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention.
• Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention and a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
• Fifth Circuit precedent also foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the immediate effect of the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 immigration-detention rulings on habeas petitions in Texas federal courts. Those precedents foreclose both statutory claims seeking § 1226(a) bond hearings and due-process challenges to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) for similarly situated noncitizens in removal proceedings.