Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
George Daniel Ramirez, a Venezuelan citizen in removal proceedings without a final removal order, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He sought release from immigration custody during the proceedings.
Ramirez challenged his detention under federal immigration law and raised due-process, Administrative Procedure Act, Accardi, and Fourth Amendment theories. The district court had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition, holding that binding Fifth Circuit precedent required Ramirez’s detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Under Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, a person in removal proceedings who cannot show that he is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention, foreclosing Ramirez’s claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
The court also held that Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed Ramirez’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention. His APA and Accardi theories failed because § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than an allegedly unlawful final agency action, controlled his custody.
Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to review claims arising from the government’s decision to commence removal proceedings, including claims concerning Ramirez’s arrest. Any alleged Fourth Amendment violation also did not affect the legality of his detention during removal proceedings. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent required mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because Ramirez had not shown that he was clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission.
- Binding en banc precedent foreclosed the argument that this mandatory detention violated due process.
- Arrest-related Fourth Amendment claims neither established that Ramirez’s current detention was unlawful nor fell within the district court’s jurisdiction under § 1252(g).
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to detention during pending removal proceedings. Within the Fifth Circuit, noncitizens in Ramirez’s position cannot obtain a bond hearing under § 1226(a) when § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs their custody.
The opinion also limits efforts to use habeas proceedings to litigate the circumstances of an immigration arrest. The relevant habeas question is the legality of present detention, and an allegedly unlawful arrest does not by itself invalidate detention mandated by the immigration statute.