Abdoulaye Diakite, who acknowledged illegally entering the United States, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his detention under immigration law as violations of due process, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The case centers on the government's authority to detain immigrants without bond hearings while removal proceedings are pending.
Judge Eskridge cited the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, which held that anyone present in the U.S. without legal admission is subject to mandatory detention under federal immigration law. The judge noted that procedural due process doesn't require individualized custody determinations beyond the statutory mandate, and that pre-removal detention doesn't violate substantive due process within the six-month timeframe established by Supreme Court precedent.
The court also rejected Diakite's Administrative Procedure Act claims, finding them foreclosed by existing law that provides adequate remedy through habeas relief. Judge Eskridge referenced his own recent rulings in similar cases, including Penafiel Clavijo v. Thompson and Garcia Tabon v. Dickey, that reached comparable conclusions on detention challenges.
Despite signaling skepticism about the petition's prospects, Judge Eskridge ordered the government to show cause by April 16 regarding the propriety of Diakite's continued detention, with any reply due April 21. The ruling reflects the ongoing tension between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections for detained immigrants awaiting removal proceedings.