Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Ignacio Gutierrez, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained in immigration custody. He had no final order of removal and sought release from custody during the proceedings.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention. The court evaluated whether Gutierrez was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and whether his detention without such a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Gutierrez 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 doubt entitled to admission. That precedent foreclosed his argument that § 1226(a) entitled him to a bond hearing.
The court also rejected Gutierrez’s due-process claim. It distinguished the potentially indefinite post-removal-order detention addressed in Zadvydas v. Davis from detention during ongoing removal proceedings. Relying on Demore v. Kim, the court concluded that Gutierrez’s detention had a definite endpoint—the conclusion of the removal proceedings followed by removal or release—and that mandatory detention without a bond hearing during those proceedings was constitutionally permissible.
The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. It added that if Gutierrez had since received a final removal order, been removed, or been released, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person in removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a).
- The court held that mandatory pre-removal-order detention without a bond hearing does not violate due process merely because it continues while removal proceedings remain pending.
- The constitutional concern associated with potentially indefinite post-removal-order detention did not apply because Gutierrez’s detention would end when his removal proceedings concluded and the government either removed or released him.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to foreclose statutory bond-hearing claims by similarly situated immigration detainees in Texas and confirms that § 2241 jurisdiction does not itself establish an entitlement to relief.
It also reflects the Western District of Texas’s treatment of the large volume of habeas petitions challenging immigration custody: where removal proceedings remain ongoing and no final removal order exists, the court views controlling precedent as permitting mandatory detention without an individualized bond hearing.