Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hiram Columbie Oliveros, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained in immigration custody. He was not subject to a final removal order, and the parties had not advised the court that he had been removed or otherwise released.
Oliveros challenged his continued detention without a bond hearing, asserting claims under the immigration statutes, the Due Process Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy. The court recognized that it had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Oliveros 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 a doubt entitled to be admitted.” That precedent foreclosed his argument that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed Oliveros’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). His APA and Accardi claims also failed because the governing statute mandated detention, leaving no final unlawful agency action for the court to review. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show that he is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) in the Fifth Circuit.
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed both the asserted right to a § 1226(a) bond hearing and the due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
- APA and Accardi theories could not overcome detention expressly required by the governing statute.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies two recent Fifth Circuit decisions to reject statutory, constitutional, and administrative-law challenges to pre-removal-order detention. It indicates that similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi cannot obtain bond hearings or release on these theories when § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs their custody.