Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ely Josue Garcia, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings without a final removal order, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He sought release from immigration custody, joining more than 700 petitioners who had filed similar challenges in the Western District of Texas.
Garcia challenged his detention on several grounds. He argued that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process, and that relief was warranted under the Administrative Procedure Act, United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, the Fourth Amendment, and the Constitution’s Suspension Clause.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Garcia was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” That precedent foreclosed his argument that § 1226(a) entitled him to a bond hearing. The Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara likewise foreclosed his due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
The court also rejected Garcia’s remaining theories. Because § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandated detention, there was no final unlawful agency action supporting an APA or Accardi claim. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to review claims arising from the decision to commence removal proceedings and that an allegedly unlawful arrest did not undermine the legality of detention during those proceedings. Finally, the denial of habeas relief on the merits did not violate the Suspension Clause because the writ remained available for courts to adjudicate. The court denied all pending motions as moot and ordered the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person in removal proceedings who cannot show clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention and a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- The Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed the claim that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates due process.
- Challenges to an immigration arrest do not establish that continued detention is unlawful, and denial of habeas relief on the merits does not amount to suspension of the writ.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how two recent Fifth Circuit rulings control pre-removal-order detention challenges in Texas federal courts. Within the circuit, noncitizens covered by § 1225(b)(2)(A) cannot obtain habeas relief merely by asserting a right to a § 1226(a) bond hearing or a due-process objection to mandatory detention.
The opinion also limits attempts to recast the same detention challenge under the APA, Accardi doctrine, Fourth Amendment, or Suspension Clause when the governing statute mandates custody and habeas review remains available.