Gonzalez-Agramonte v. Mullin — denied habeas relief from mandatory immigration detention

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Rachel Gonzalez-Agramonte, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She remained in immigration custody without a final removal order and sought release or a bond hearing.

The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction over a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. It then considered whether Gonzalez-Agramonte was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or whether she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), as well as whether that detention violated due process.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the habeas petition. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Gonzalez-Agramonte was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because she had not shown that she was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” That precedent foreclosed her claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).

The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed any argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated her due process rights. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court separately stated that if Gonzalez-Agramonte had received a final removal order, been removed, or been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.

Key Takeaways

• A federal district court has jurisdiction under § 2241 to review a constitutional or statutory challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention.
• Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person in removal proceedings who cannot show that she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention with a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
• Binding en banc Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed the petitioner’s due process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates how two recent Fifth Circuit rulings control habeas challenges by immigration detainees seeking bond hearings or release while removal proceedings remain pending. In district courts within the Fifth Circuit, those precedents foreclose both the statutory argument for a § 1226(a) bond hearing and the asserted due process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) in circumstances like these.