Salvador Ayala Jimenez v. Pam Bondi, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed without prejudice a detainee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his immigration detention. The court held that the petitioner was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and rejected his bond, due process, equal protection, Administrative Procedure Act, Suspension Clause, and Accardi doctrine claims. All other pending motions were 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 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); petitioner's arguments for a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations were foreclosed.
2. Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process claims failed at this juncture because detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible.
3. Petitioner failed to state a Fifth Amendment equal protection claim because he did not show that he was outside the statutory definition of an applicant for admission or that similarly situated persons who entered without inspection were treated more favorably.
4. Petitioner's APA claims failed because habeas corpus supplied an adequate remedy in court.
5. Petitioner's Suspension Clause claim failed because habeas corpus remained available to challenge his immigration detention.
6. Petitioner had no substantive habeas claim under the Accardi doctrine based on the procedures used for his arrest because 8 C.F.R. § 287.8 does not provide a federal cause of action and 8 C.F.R. § 287.12 disclaims creation of enforceable rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner, who entered without inspection and has not been lawfully admitted, is an applicant for admission subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) rather than the bond-hearing framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
2. Whether petitioner stated a viable Fifth Amendment due process claim challenging detention during removal proceedings.
3. Whether petitioner stated a viable Fifth Amendment equal protection claim based on his immigration detention.
4. Whether the Administrative Procedure Act or Suspension Clause provided a basis for relief when habeas corpus was available to challenge the detention.
5. Whether 8 C.F.R. § 287.8 and the Accardi doctrine provided a substantive cause of action in federal court concerning the procedures used for petitioner's arrest.

Disposition

dismissed