Reported / Citable
Background
Manuel Eduardo Santana, a Mexican national, entered the United States without inspection and without lawful status in 1998. He was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and, through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of Texas, challenging the legality of his detention. Santana alleged he had been detained less than a month at the time of filing.
Santana sought a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), arguing he was entitled to an individualized determination of whether he posed a danger to the community or a flight risk. He also raised Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process claims, contending that his continued detention without a bond hearing was constitutionally infirm.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen dismissed the petition without prejudice on the pleadings under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, finding it plainly apparent that Santana was not entitled to relief. Because Santana entered without inspection and never obtained lawful status, the court held he is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), not the discretionary detention regime of § 1226(a). Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), the court held that his bond-hearing claim was foreclosed.
The court further rejected both of Santana’s due process theories. His procedural due process claim failed because the statute itself mandates detention, making a bond hearing futile — an outcome directly supported by the Supreme Court’s holding in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018). His substantive due process claim was foreclosed by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), which established that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible component of that process. The court noted that Santana had been detained for less than a month and pleaded no facts suggesting indefinite or otherwise unconstitutional detention.
Key Takeaways
- Individuals who entered the U.S. without inspection and never obtained lawful status are classified as applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2) and are subject to mandatory detention — not the discretionary bond-hearing framework of § 1226(a).
- The Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro-Mendez decision (Feb. 2026) forecloses bond-hearing claims by detainees in this posture, and district courts in the circuit are applying it to dismiss such habeas petitions at the pleading stage.
- Neither procedural nor substantive due process requires a bond hearing where detention is statutorily mandated and the period of detention is short and not alleged to be indefinite.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how the Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro-Mendez ruling is rapidly reshaping habeas litigation for ICE detainees in Texas. Petitioners who entered without inspection can no longer invoke § 1226(a)’s bond-hearing procedures, and district courts are dismissing such petitions at the threshold without evidentiary development. Attorneys representing detained noncitizens in the Fifth Circuit must account for this mandatory-detention framework when advising clients and structuring challenges.
The case also underscores the durability of Demore v. Kim and Jennings v. Rodriguez as shields against due process challenges to immigration detention, at least where detention has not yet extended to a duration that courts might view as constitutionally suspect. The dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility of renewed constitutional challenges if the detention becomes prolonged.