Ruben Verduzco Benitez v. Judge Charles Eskridge, Bret Bradford, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Ruben Verduzco Benitez’s habeas petition challenging his detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings. The court held that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), applied, and it granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

Holdings

1. Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and was not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
2. A regulation cannot override the plain text of § 1225(b)(2)(A); to the extent a regulation conflicts with the statute, the statute governs.
3. Petitioner's detention without a bond-redetermination hearing did not establish a due-process violation on the facts presented.
4. A stay of removal was beyond the scope of the habeas proceeding because it was unrelated to the fact or duration of petitioner's detention.
5. Petitioner was not entitled to injunctive relief because he had not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner was subject to discretionary detention and entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or mandatory detention as an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
2. Whether immigration bond regulations could require a bond hearing despite the text of § 1225(b)(2)(A).
3. Whether detention without a bond-redetermination hearing violated due process.
4. Whether habeas jurisdiction permitted the court to stay removal.
5. Whether petitioner was entitled to injunctive relief.

Disposition

dismissed