Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Teodoro Gutierrez Campos, a Nicaraguan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He remained in immigration custody and, according to the record before the court, was not subject to a final removal order.
The petition was one of more than 700 filed in the district seeking release from immigration custody during removal proceedings. The court noted that if Gutierrez Campos had since received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released, it would deny the petition as moot because the requested habeas relief could no longer be granted.
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 Gutierrez Campos was unlawfully detained without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” 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 claim that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
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) under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The petitioner was not entitled to 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 applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention. Within the Fifth Circuit, district courts are bound by those decisions when detainees seek bond hearings or release on the theories rejected there.
The order also indicates that a change in custody or removal status may moot a habeas petition when the requested relief can no longer be provided.