Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joesthp Adonay Orellana Araujo, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 2012. On April 26, 2026, immigration authorities served him with a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), issued a warrant for his arrest, and took him into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.
Orellana Araujo, who was seeking adjustment of status, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. He argued that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process and also requested fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that he was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). He did not file a reply.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court held that a person present in the United States without admission is deemed an applicant for admission and is therefore subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
The court further held that this detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It reasoned that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until specified immigration proceedings conclude, Orellana Araujo was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing. His request for fees and costs also failed because he was not the prevailing party.
Key Takeaways
- A person present in the United States without having been admitted is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Section 1225(b)(2) requires detention of covered applicants for admission while the relevant immigration proceedings remain pending.
- The court held that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) does not create a substantive or procedural due-process right to a bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to reject a constitutional challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). For immigration practitioners in the Southern District of Texas, it indicates that habeas claims seeking bond hearings for non-admitted applicants will face substantial obstacles when the detention falls within that provision.