Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ailyn Rodriguez Escobar, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She remained in immigration custody without a final removal order and sought release during the proceedings.
The district court explained that it had jurisdiction over a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention. It then considered whether Rodriguez Escobar was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or whether her detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), as well as whether 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 Rodriguez Escobar was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because she had not shown that she was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” That binding precedent foreclosed her claim to a bond hearing and release under § 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 Rodriguez Escobar’s due process rights. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. It further stated that if Rodriguez Escobar had since received a final removal order, been removed, or been released, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show that she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The court rejected the petitioner’s effort to obtain a bond hearing or release under § 1226(a).
- Binding en banc Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed the petitioner’s due process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to pre-removal-order immigration detention in Texas. It confirms that, within the circuit, detainees covered by § 1225(b)(2)(A) cannot obtain habeas relief merely by asserting entitlement to a § 1226(a) bond hearing or a due process right against mandatory detention.