Reported / Citable
Background
Alejandro Cortez Esquivel, a Mexican national, entered the United States without inspection about six years before the decision. In June 2026, Travis County arrested him for assault causing bodily injury to a family member. He was convicted of the Class A misdemeanor, served a 60-day sentence, and was then transferred to federal immigration custody at the T. Don Hutto Detention Center while removal proceedings continued.
Esquivel petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for immediate release or an individualized bond hearing. He challenged his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) on due-process, Administrative Procedure Act, agency-regulation, and Suspension Clause grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition. It held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) expressly authorizes detention during removal proceedings without an individualized bond hearing and that detention during deportation proceedings is constitutionally valid. The court rejected Esquivel’s additional arguments for the reasons stated in its earlier decision in Cazares Tapia v. Mullin.
The court also concluded that a Fifth Circuit stay order in Rodriguez v. Ortega did not require it to hold the case in abeyance. The order stayed district-court judgments granting the due-process relief at issue in Rodriguez; it did not bar district courts from adjudicating habeas petitions or entering final judgments. Because Esquivel was not entitled to relief, the court entered a final denial.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1225(b)(2)(A) authorizes detention pending removal proceedings without an individualized bond hearing.
- The court rejected a constitutional challenge to that detention based on due process.
- The Fifth Circuit’s Rodriguez stay order did not prevent district courts from deciding comparable habeas petitions.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms this court’s view that a noncitizen detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) is not entitled to habeas relief merely because no individualized bond hearing has occurred. It also explains that Rodriguez’s en banc-related stay affects enforcement of grants of relief, not a district court’s ability to decide pending detention challenges.