Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Norma Yesenia Martinez Zepeda, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in September 2009. After arrest by Border Patrol, she was released on her own recognizance and subsequently filed for asylum and withholding of removal in 2009. On December 25, 2025, she was arrested in Chelsea, Massachusetts for assault and battery. Upon her release from that arrest, she was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on December 26, 2025.
On February 10, 2026, she was served with a Notice to Appear charging removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the United States without admission or parole. An immigration judge denied her asylum application and ordered her removal to El Salvador on June 15, 2026. She appealed and remains in immigration custody without being granted a bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The district court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Martinez Zepeda’s habeas corpus petition. The court held that because her presence in the United States without admission renders her an “applicant for admission,” she is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) during removal proceedings.
The court rejected her due process challenge on both substantive and procedural grounds. It cited Supreme Court precedent establishing that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of the immigration process. The court further held that because Congress determines the rights of applicants for admission by statute, and § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention without providing for bond hearings, Martinez Zepeda has no procedural due process right to a bond hearing under applicable law.
Key Takeaways
- Aliens physically present in the United States without admission are treated as applicants for admission and subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- Mandatory detention of applicants for admission during removal proceedings does not violate substantive or procedural due process under current law.
- Habeas corpus petitions challenging immigration detention on due process grounds fail when the detention is authorized by statute and complies with its terms.
- The statutory framework of immigration detention precludes any entitlement to a bond hearing for those detained under § 1225(b)(2).
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the government’s broad authority to detain immigration applicants without individualized bond hearings during removal proceedings. It signals that federal courts will not impose procedural requirements beyond those Congress has statutorily prescribed in the immigration context, even when detention extends through the removal process.
The holding has significant implications for asylum seekers and others in removal proceedings, as it effectively eliminates habeas corpus as a vehicle to challenge detention practices when the detention falls within the statutory mandate of § 1225(b)(2). The decision reflects judicial deference to Congress’s immigration enforcement scheme over due process arguments.