Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Giovanni Chavez Carbajal, a citizen of Peru, was detained while removal proceedings remained pending against him. He had not received a final order of removal and petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued custody without a bond hearing.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider a constitutional challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. But the court concluded that the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Carbajal’s claim to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the court treated his detention as mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that binding Fifth Circuit precedent required Carbajal’s detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while his removal proceedings were pending and foreclosed relief based on the absence of a § 1226(a) bond hearing.
The court also rejected Carbajal’s due-process argument. Distinguishing the potentially indefinite post-removal detention addressed in Zadvydas v. Davis, the court reasoned that Carbajal’s detention had a definite endpoint: completion of the removal proceedings, followed either by removal if the government obtained a removal order or by release if it did not. Relying on Demore v. Kim, the court held that mandatory detention without bond during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. It also denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission may be subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) during removal proceedings.
- The court held that Carbajal had no statutory right to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Pre-removal detention was not unconstitutional as indefinite because the conclusion of removal proceedings supplied a definite termination point.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory detention without a bond hearing while removal proceedings remain pending. For similarly situated habeas petitioners in the Fifth Circuit, the ruling underscores that Zadvydas’s concern with potentially permanent post-removal detention does not extend automatically to detention before a final removal decision.