Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Frometa Martinez Dervis, a Cuban 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 information 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 detention during removal proceedings. The court recognized that it had jurisdiction over a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention, but concluded that recently issued Fifth Circuit precedent controlled the merits.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Martinez Dervis was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Applying Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it reasoned that a noncitizen in removal proceedings who has not shown that he is “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” must be detained, foreclosing his claim to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The court also held that the due-process challenge to mandatory detention was foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara. It therefore denied the habeas petition, denied all pending motions as moot, and directed the clerk to close the case. The court added that if Martinez Dervis had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Section 2241 provides jurisdiction over constitutional and statutory challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention.
- Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention and a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- The Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
Why It Matters
The order applies two recent Fifth Circuit decisions to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory immigration detention. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those precedents substantially limit habeas claims seeking bond hearings or release during ongoing removal proceedings.