Reported / Citable
Background
Everilda Xol Ichich de Barrientos, an ICE detainee, filed a second habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her continued detention. She had previously received a bond hearing, at which an immigration judge denied bond after finding that she posed a flight risk.
In this petition, Barrientos disagreed with the immigration judge’s bond determination and also asserted that her ongoing detention violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen denied the petition and dismissed the case. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) barred it from reviewing the immigration judge’s discretionary decision to deny bond based on a flight-risk finding.
The court further held that Barrientos’s due-process challenge to continued detention was foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara. It denied any remaining motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review a discretionary immigration bond denial under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).
- A detainee’s disagreement with an immigration judge’s flight-risk determination does not supply a basis for habeas relief.
- The court treated the petitioner’s continued-detention due-process claim as foreclosed by controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the limited scope of district-court habeas review over immigration custody decisions. Where the challenge targets the discretionary merits of an immigration judge’s bond ruling, rather than a reviewable legal or constitutional issue, § 1226(e) prevents the court from revisiting that determination.