Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yermy Dayael Contreras Garcia, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings without a final removal order, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody. The district court had jurisdiction to consider his challenge to pre-removal-order detention.
Contreras Garcia argued that his detention without a bond hearing was unlawful under the immigration statutes, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and equal-protection guarantees, the Administrative Procedure Act and United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, and the Fourth Amendment.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Contreras Garcia 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. He therefore was not entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The court also rejected his constitutional and administrative claims. It held that detention during ongoing removal proceedings has a definite endpoint and is constitutionally permissible under Demore v. Kim; that the governing statute left no unlawful final agency action for APA or Accardi review; and that an alleged unlawful arrest neither affected the legality of his current detention nor supplied a cognizable basis for habeas relief. The court further held that detainees covered by §§ 1225 and 1226 are not similarly situated and that mandatory detention under § 1225 is rationally related to preventing applicants for admission from absconding.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) during removal proceedings without a § 1226(a) bond hearing.
- Pre-removal detention does not become constitutionally indefinite merely because proceedings remain pending; the court treated the conclusion of those proceedings as a definite termination point.
- Fourth Amendment objections to an arrest do not, without more, undermine otherwise lawful detention under § 1225 or support release through a § 2241 petition.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to foreclose bond-hearing claims by similarly situated immigration detainees in the Western District of Texas. It also consolidates the court’s reasons for rejecting related due-process, APA, Fourth Amendment, and equal-protection theories challenging mandatory detention while removal proceedings are pending.
The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.