Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Oxdemar Perez Santana, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He remained in immigration custody without a final removal order and sought release during the proceedings.
The district court had jurisdiction to consider a Section 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention. The court addressed whether Perez Santana was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and whether his mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court held that Perez Santana was subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” That binding precedent foreclosed his argument that he was entitled to a bond hearing under Section 1226(a).
The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the argument that mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) violated Perez Santana’s due process rights. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court also stated that if Perez Santana 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 a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Buenrostro-Mendez foreclosed Perez Santana’s claim to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- The Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez foreclosed his due process challenge to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A).
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory detention while removal proceedings remain pending. For immigration detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi who are not clearly entitled to admission, those precedents sharply limit the availability of habeas relief seeking a bond hearing or release on due process grounds.