Reported / Citable
Background
Maohong Cai, a Chinese national, entered the United States at a port of entry on January 30, 2020, and was issued a Notice to Appear initiating removal proceedings on May 4, 2020. She was released on her own recognizance shortly thereafter and remained free for nearly six years. On March 2, 2026, however, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained her at a routine immigration check-in under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), the mandatory detention provision applicable to applicants for admission who have received a positive credible-fear determination from an asylum officer.
Cai filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that her continued detention without a bond hearing violated both due process and the regulatory provision at 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i). The government responded with a motion for summary judgment, contending that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1) is constitutionally permissible and that Cai had not exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to the regulatory claim.
The Court’s Holding
Senior District Judge Sim Lake granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. On the constitutional claims, the court relied on Supreme Court precedent — specifically Demore v. Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708 (2003) — for the proposition that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process. The court further reasoned that because applicants for admission possess only those rights Congress has conferred by statute, and because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until certain proceedings have concluded, Cai was not entitled to a bond hearing as a matter of either substantive or procedural due process.
On the regulatory claim under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i), the court held that Cai had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Drawing on the court’s prior decision in Morales v. Frink, Civil Action No. H-26-0624 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2026), the court noted that Cai had provided no evidence that she had petitioned the immigration court to adjudicate that claim before seeking federal habeas relief.
Key Takeaways
- Aliens subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) following a positive credible-fear determination are not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing under either substantive or procedural due process.
- Applicants for admission hold only those statutory rights Congress has chosen to grant; that limited rights framework forecloses a procedural due process claim to a bond hearing where the statute mandates detention.
- A habeas petitioner asserting a regulatory violation under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i) must first exhaust available administrative remedies — such as petitioning the immigration court — before federal courts will consider the claim.
Why It Matters
This decision is part of a consistent line of rulings from the Southern District of Texas rejecting habeas challenges to prolonged immigration detention without bond hearings. For attorneys representing asylum seekers detained under § 1225(b)(1), the case underscores that federal courts in this district are unlikely to order bond hearings on constitutional grounds, and that regulatory claims under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i) must be presented to the immigration court before habeas relief will be entertained.
The ruling also highlights the practical stakes of the mandatory-detention framework for individuals like Cai, who lived in the United States for six years before being detained at a routine check-in. Absent circuit-level intervention or a change in administrative policy, noncitizens in removal proceedings who receive credible-fear determinations face indefinite detention without any individualized bond hearing in this jurisdiction.