Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Pedro Mendoza Cardenas, a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without inspection, was transferred from the Fort Bend County Jail to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on April 11, 2026. ICE served him that day with a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled.
Mendoza Cardenas filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. He contended that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process and equal protection, and he asserted an as-applied challenge. The respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Mendoza Cardenas did not reply.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. Applying Fifth Circuit precedent, it held that a noncitizen present without admission is deemed an applicant for admission and is therefore subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The court concluded that this detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process and that Mendoza Cardenas was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing.
The court also rejected the as-applied and equal-protection challenges. It found no authority establishing a viable as-applied due-process claim under his circumstances and concluded that § 1225(b)(2) authorized his continued detention. His equal-protection claim failed because he did not identify a similarly situated group receiving more favorable treatment; noncitizens who overstay visas are in removal proceedings on different grounds from those who enter without inspection. To the extent he asserted an Administrative Procedure Act claim, the court stated that it was foreclosed as a matter of law.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission and is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that such detention during removal proceedings does not create a substantive or procedural due-process right to a bond hearing.
- An equal-protection comparison between people who entered without inspection and people who overstayed visas fails because the groups face removal on different grounds.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to reject constitutional challenges to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). In the Southern District of Texas, noncitizens charged with entering without inspection face a substantial obstacle to obtaining bond hearings through § 2241 petitions based on general due-process or equal-protection theories.
The ruling also underscores that an as-applied challenge must rest on authority and circumstances capable of overcoming the statute’s detention mandate, while an equal-protection claim must identify a genuinely similarly situated group receiving more favorable treatment.