Granillo-Vasquez v. Venturella — Court denied habeas relief from mandatory immigration detention

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Jose de Jesus Granillo-Vasquez, a Mexican citizen in removal proceedings without a final removal order, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He sought release from immigration custody during the proceedings.

The district court had jurisdiction to consider his challenge to pre-removal-order detention. Granillo-Vasquez contended that his custody was unlawful under the immigration statutes and due process principles and also asserted a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act and/or United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Granillo-Vasquez was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 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 he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed any claim that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. His APA and Accardi theory likewise failed because the statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action for the court to review.

The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. It further stated that if Granillo-Vasquez had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.

Key Takeaways

• A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
• Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed both a statutory claim to a § 1226(a) bond hearing and a due process challenge to that mandatory detention.
• The APA and Accardi claim failed because the governing statute itself required detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action to set aside.

Why It Matters

The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory, constitutional, and administrative-law challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention. In district courts within the Fifth Circuit, those precedents substantially limit habeas petitions seeking bond hearings or release for noncitizens detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A).