Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Novis Alejandro Perez-De Dios, a Honduran citizen in removal proceedings, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody. He was not subject to a final removal order when the action was filed.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider a challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. Perez-De Dios contended that his custody without a bond hearing was unlawful and that mandatory detention violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Perez-De Dios 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 admission. That precedent foreclosed his claim to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court separately stated that if Perez-De Dios had received a final removal order, been removed, or been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.
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).
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Perez-De Dios’s request for a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Fifth Circuit en banc precedent also foreclosed his due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates how recent Fifth Circuit decisions control habeas challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention in district courts within Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Under those precedents, similarly situated detainees generally cannot obtain bond hearings by invoking § 1226(a) or prevail on a due-process challenge to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).