Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Neftali Rodriguez Tellez, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained at the El Paso Processing Center. He was not subject to a final removal order and sought release from immigration custody during the proceedings.
Rodriguez Tellez challenged his detention on statutory and constitutional grounds, including arguments concerning a bond hearing, due process, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Accardi doctrine, and the Fourth Amendment. The district court had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention.
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 Tellez 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 contention that he was entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the due-process challenge to mandatory detention. Because § 1225(b)(2)(A) required detention, the APA and Accardi theories identified no final unlawful agency action for review. The court further concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) over claims arising from the decision to commence removal proceedings and that any alleged Fourth Amendment violation concerning the arrest did not affect the legality of detention during those proceedings.
The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. It added that if Rodriguez Tellez had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing, the petition was alternatively denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) during removal proceedings.
- The Fifth Circuit’s en banc Sosnava Rodriguez decision foreclosed a due-process challenge to that mandatory detention.
- Claims concerning the arrest did not establish entitlement to habeas relief because they either arose from the commencement of removal proceedings or did not bear on the legality of ongoing detention.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates how the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decisions in Buenrostro-Mendez and Sosnava Rodriguez constrain district-court challenges to pre-removal-order detention. Within the Fifth Circuit, detainees covered by § 1225(b)(2)(A) cannot obtain habeas relief merely by asserting a right to a § 1226(a) bond hearing or a due-process objection to mandatory detention.
The decision also underscores the limited scope of § 2241 review: alleged defects in an immigration arrest do not, without more, undermine the statutory authority for detention during removal proceedings.