Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Francisco Ramon Rossa Chanchamire, who alleged both Venezuelan and Colombian citizenship, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration custody while removal proceedings were pending. He was not subject to a final order of removal.
The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction over a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention. The dispute centered on whether Rossa Chanchamire was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), whether he instead was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and whether that detention violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed the argument that Rossa Chanchamire was unlawfully detained without a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the court concluded that § 1225(b)(2)(A) required his detention during removal proceedings.
The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed any claim that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court separately noted that if Rossa Chanchamire had received a final removal order, been removed, or been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen in pending removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed both the claimed right to a § 1226(a) bond hearing and the due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
- The court denied the § 2241 petition, denied pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit precedent to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory pre-removal detention. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the cited appellate decisions substantially limit the availability of habeas relief based on the denial of a bond hearing.