Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jordan Daniel Zapon-Rosales, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States without inspection in June 2013. He was served with a Notice to Appear, placed in a juvenile shelter, and later released to his sister on his own recognizance. An immigration court ordered him removed in absentia in September 2014.
In May 2026, Zapon-Rosales reported to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office and was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. He successfully moved to reopen his removal proceedings, which remain pending, but he continued to be detained. He petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated due process and that a Central District of California decision, Bautista v. Santacruz, entitled him to relief. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court held that a person present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission and is therefore subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The court declined to follow Bautista because that California district-court decision did not control in light of binding Fifth Circuit precedent. It also rejected both substantive- and procedural-due-process challenges, reasoning that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that § 1225(b)(2) does not provide applicants for admission a right to a bond hearing while the specified proceedings remain unresolved. The court noted that the Fifth Circuit opinion on which Zapon-Rosales relied in his reply had been vacated.
Key Takeaways
- An individual present without having been admitted is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) in the Fifth Circuit.
- Mandatory detention during ongoing removal proceedings did not violate substantive or procedural due process in this case.
- The court declined to apply the Central District of California’s classwide Bautista ruling because it conflicted with controlling Fifth Circuit authority.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that, within the Fifth Circuit, noncitizens classified as applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2) generally cannot obtain bond hearings through due-process challenges while their removal proceedings remain pending. It also illustrates that reopening an in absentia removal order—and thereby restoring ongoing removal proceedings—does not itself create a right to release or an individualized bond hearing.