Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Josue Nehemias Montoya Delgado, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He remained in immigration custody without a final removal order and sought release from detention during the proceedings.
The district court had jurisdiction to review his challenge to pre-removal-order detention. The dispute centered on whether Delgado was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), whether he instead fell within the mandatory-detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and whether detention without a bond hearing violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Delgado’s argument that he was unlawfully detained for lack of a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because Delgado had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the court concluded that § 1225(b)(2)(A) required his detention during removal proceedings.
The court also rejected Delgado’s due-process claim. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it distinguished potentially indefinite post-removal-order detention from detention while removal proceedings remain pending. Delgado’s detention had a definite endpoint—the conclusion of those proceedings, followed either by removal or release if the government failed to obtain a removal order—and therefore was neither indefinite nor potentially permanent. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission may be subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a).
- The court held that mandatory detention without a bond hearing during pending removal proceedings did not violate due process because the detention had a definite termination point.
- The ruling denied Delgado’s § 2241 petition outright; it did not order a bond hearing or release from custody.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory pre-removal-order detention. For similarly situated detainees in the Fifth Circuit, the ruling indicates that requests for § 1226(a) bond hearings are foreclosed when § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs.
It also underscores the court’s view that Zadvydas does not control detention during ongoing removal proceedings, because such detention ends when those proceedings conclude rather than continuing without an identifiable endpoint.