Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Richard Alonso Tarazona-Blanco, a Colombian citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained in immigration custody. He was not subject to a final removal order, and the parties had not informed the court that he had been removed or otherwise released.
The petition was one of more than 700 filed in the district seeking release from immigration custody during removal proceedings. The court recognized that it had jurisdiction to consider a Section 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, it held that Tarazona-Blanco 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 be admitted.” That precedent foreclosed his argument that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The court further held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed any claim that mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case. The court also stated that if Tarazona-Blanco had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing, the petition was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A federal district court may exercise Section 2241 jurisdiction over a challenge to pre-removal-order immigration detention.
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen who cannot show that he is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than bond procedures under Section 1226(a).
- Binding en banc Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to that mandatory detention.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject both statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory detention during removal proceedings. For similarly situated detainees in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, those precedents substantially limit habeas claims seeking a bond hearing or release under Section 1226(a).