Reported / Citable
Background
Hector Alejandro Flores-Alvarado, a Mexican citizen, was held in immigration custody at the Port Isabel Service Processing Center while removal proceedings were pending. The Department of Homeland Security classified him as an applicant for admission and detained him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which mandates detention during removal proceedings subject to narrow exceptions.
Flores-Alvarado petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Although he stated that he had lived in the United States since 2005, he did not claim that he had been admitted or paroled. He argued that DHS had wrongly placed him under § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than the bond-eligible framework of § 1226(a), and that detention without an individualized assessment of flight risk or dangerousness violated procedural due process.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and closing the case. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the report concluded that a noncitizen present in the United States without having been admitted is deemed an applicant for admission. Flores-Alvarado’s lengthy physical presence therefore did not make him eligible for detention under § 1226(a), and DHS properly classified him under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The report also concluded that mandatory detention without a bond hearing did not violate the Fifth Amendment. It treated Demore v. Kim as controlling because that decision recognized detention during removal proceedings as a constitutionally permissible means of preventing noncitizens from absconding. Although Demore concerned § 1226(c), the magistrate judge reasoned that its constitutional analysis also applied to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who is present in the United States but has not been admitted may be treated as an applicant for admission under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Long-term physical presence alone does not establish eligibility for bond under § 1226(a).
- The magistrate judge concluded that mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without an individualized bond hearing, did not violate procedural due process.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies Fifth Circuit precedent to foreclose statutory challenges by nonadmitted noncitizens seeking transfer from mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) to the discretionary bond system under § 1226(a). It also extends Demore’s due-process reasoning beyond the criminal-alien detention provision at issue in that case.
The document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final merits judgment by the district judge. The parties retained the opportunity to file objections before the district court decided whether to adopt its conclusions.