Ortiz Narez v. De Anda-Ybarra — Court denied habeas relief from mandatory immigration detention

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Braulio Ortiz Narez, a Mexican citizen in removal proceedings without a final removal order, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He sought release from immigration custody, challenging his detention without a bond hearing.

The district court had jurisdiction to consider the legality of his pre-removal-order detention. It analyzed whether Ortiz Narez was subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and also addressed his due-process and Fourth Amendment arguments.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the habeas petition. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Ortiz Narez was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he had not shown that he was clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission. That precedent foreclosed his claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).

The court also rejected the due-process challenge. Applying Zadvydas v. Davis and Demore v. Kim, it reasoned that the detention was neither indefinite nor potentially permanent because it had a definite termination framework: release if the government failed to obtain a removal order, or, if an order issued, removal following the proceedings and within the applicable statutory removal period. Mandatory detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings therefore did not violate due process.

Finally, the court held that an alleged Fourth Amendment violation concerning Ortiz Narez’s arrest did not affect the legality of his detention under § 1225(b). It also concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived it of jurisdiction over claims arising from the government’s decision to commence removal proceedings. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.

Key Takeaways

• Fifth Circuit precedent required detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than a bond hearing under § 1226(a), for a noncitizen who could not show a clear entitlement to admission.
• The court found no due-process violation because the detention was tied to removal proceedings and would lead either to release if no removal order was obtained or to removal after an order and the statutory removal period.
• Claims concerning an allegedly unlawful arrest neither undermined the statutory basis for detention nor supplied a basis for habeas relief.

Why It Matters

The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject bond-hearing claims by noncitizens detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings remain pending. It also illustrates the distinction between detention connected to ongoing removal proceedings and the potentially indefinite post-removal-period detention addressed in Zadvydas.

For habeas practitioners, the opinion emphasizes that challenges to the manner of arrest are distinct from challenges to the legal authority for continued immigration detention and may also fall within § 1252(g)’s jurisdictional bar.