Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ronal Truyenque Perez, 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 order of removal and sought relief from that detention.
The district court had jurisdiction to review Perez’s challenge to his pre-removal-order detention. The court noted that the case was one of more than 700 immigration-custody habeas petitions filed in the district.
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 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 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 any argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated Perez’s due-process rights. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Such a detainee is not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) on the theory advanced here.
- Fifth Circuit precedent also foreclosed Perez’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 immigration-detention rulings govern district courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Within that circuit, detainees in Perez’s position cannot obtain habeas relief based solely on the absence of a § 1226(a) bond hearing or on the due-process theory rejected in Sosnava Rodriguez.