Enohelia Rodriguez Hernandez v. Mark Wayne Mullin, et al.

Summary

The Southern District of Texas dismisses without prejudice a detainee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging immigration detention. The court concludes that the petitioner, who entered the United States without inspection and was placed in removal proceedings, is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and rejects her bond, due process, equal protection, Administrative Procedure Act, and Accardi doctrine claims. All other pending motions are denied as moot.

Holdings

1. A noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection, has not been lawfully admitted, and is in removal proceedings is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); arguments seeking a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) are foreclosed.
2. The petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process challenge to detention during removal proceedings did not warrant relief because detention during those proceedings is constitutionally permissible and §§ 1225(b)(1) and 1225(b)(2) mandate detention of covered applicants for admission until the relevant proceedings conclude.
3. The petitioner's equal protection claim failed because she did not identify a similarly situated class treated more favorably or allege facts showing that she fell outside the statutory definition of an applicant for admission under § 1225(b).
4. The petitioner's APA claims failed because habeas corpus supplied an adequate remedy in court for challenging her detention.
5. The petitioner had no substantive habeas claim under the Accardi doctrine based on alleged violations of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8 because 8 C.F.R. § 287.12 disclaims the creation of rights enforceable by any party.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petitioner's detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rather than the bond-hearing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
2. Whether the petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims established a basis for relief from detention.
3. Whether the Administrative Procedure Act provided a remedy when habeas corpus was available to challenge the detention.
4. Whether 8 C.F.R. § 287.8 and the Accardi doctrine supplied an enforceable claim concerning the procedures used for petitioner's arrest.

Disposition

dismissed