Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Diego Alexander Criollo-Criollo, an Ecuadorian citizen detained while removal proceedings were pending, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He had not received a final order of removal and sought relief from immigration custody.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider a constitutional challenge to pre-removal-order detention. The central issues were whether Criollo-Criollo was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and whether his mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed the argument that Criollo-Criollo was unlawfully detained for lack of a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission, he was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) during his removal proceedings.
The court also rejected the due-process challenge. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it concluded that detention during pending removal proceedings has a definite endpoint—the proceedings will conclude in either a removal order followed by removal or release if the government fails to obtain an order. Because the detention was not indefinite or potentially permanent, mandatory detention without a bond hearing was constitutionally permissible.
The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. It separately stated that if Criollo-Criollo had received a final removal order, had been removed, or had otherwise been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Criollo-Criollo’s claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- A person not clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings remain pending.
- The court found no due-process violation because pre-removal-order detention has a definite termination point and is not indefinite or potentially permanent.
Why It Matters
The decision applies binding Fifth Circuit precedent to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory immigration detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the ruling underscores that a challenge based solely on the absence of a § 1226(a) bond hearing is foreclosed when § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs.
The opinion also distinguishes detention during ongoing removal proceedings from potentially indefinite detention after removal proceedings have ended, making the procedural posture and existence of a final removal order critical to due-process analysis.