Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Julio Parra Angulo, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained at the El Paso Processing Center. He had no final order of removal and sought release from immigration custody or a bond hearing.
Parra Angulo challenged his detention under the immigration statutes, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and equal-protection guarantees, and the Administrative Procedure Act or the rule of United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy. The district court had jurisdiction to consider his challenge to pre-removal-order detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Parra Angulo was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), because he had not shown that he was clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission. He therefore had no statutory right to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
The court also rejected his constitutional and administrative-law theories. His detention was not indefinite or potentially permanent because it would end when removal proceedings concluded, making detention without bond constitutionally permissible under Demore v. Kim. Because § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandated detention, there was no final unlawful agency action to review under the APA or Accardi. And § 1225 detainees were not similarly situated to § 1226 detainees; in any event, mandatory detention was rationally related to preventing applicants for admission from absconding.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who is not clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) during removal proceedings.
- Pre-removal-order detention has a definite endpoint and is not unconstitutional merely because the detainee receives no bond hearing.
- The court rejected the APA, Accardi, and equal-protection challenges because the statute mandated detention and the classification survived rational-basis review.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Buenrostro-Mendez to foreclose statutory bond-hearing claims by covered immigration detainees in Texas federal courts. It also treats detention lasting through ongoing removal proceedings as constitutionally distinct from the potentially indefinite post-removal-order detention addressed in Zadvydas v. Davis.
The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.