Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Victor Manuel Flores Avila, a Honduran citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained at the Limestone County Detention Center. He had no final order of removal, and the court had not been informed that he had since received one, been removed, or been released.
The petition was one of more than 700 filed in the court seeking release from immigration custody during removal proceedings. The court recognized that it had jurisdiction over § 2241 challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention and addressed whether Flores Avila was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or relief on due-process grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Flores Avila’s claim that he was unlawfully detained without a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the court concluded that he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) while his removal proceedings remained pending.
The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated Flores Avila’s due-process rights. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court added that if Flores Avila had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show that he is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The court rejected any entitlement to a discretionary bond hearing under § 1226(a) because Buenrostro-Mendez foreclosed that statutory theory.
- The en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed the due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those precedents substantially limit the availability of habeas relief seeking release or a bond hearing while removal proceedings are pending.