Reported / Citable
Background
Erdwin Jose Socarras Bastida, a noncitizen detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2021.
Socarras Bastida contended that he was wrongly categorized as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and should instead be eligible for a discretionary bond hearing under § 1226(a). He also raised Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause claims against the government officials responsible for his detention.
The Court’s Holding
The district court denied the petition and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court ruled that Socarras Bastida’s statutory arguments regarding §§ 1225 and 1226 were foreclosed by recent Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). The court found his ultra vires claim similarly failed because it relied on the same statutory interpretation the Fifth Circuit had already rejected.
The court also rejected his constitutional claims, holding that under Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), and Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and does not violate the Fifth Amendment. The court granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration if the Fifth Circuit en banc or the Supreme Court overrules Buenrostro-Mendez.
Key Takeaways
- District courts may summarily dismiss habeas petitions on the pleadings if petitioner is not entitled to relief as a matter of law.
- Arguments regarding mandatory vs. discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 are currently foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Detention pending removal proceedings does not violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause under established Supreme Court precedent.
- Dismissals of such petitions are typically without prejudice, allowing reconsideration if controlling authority changes.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how circuit-level precedent constrains habeas review of ICE detention decisions in the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Immigration detainees challenging mandatory detention based on statutory interpretation must contend with the Buenrostro-Mendez framework.
The ruling reflects the current legal landscape in which detention pending removal proceedings receives strong constitutional deference, leaving little room for Fifth Amendment challenges at the district court level absent intervening appellate authority. Future changes in binding circuit or Supreme Court law remain the primary avenue for relief.