Reported / Citable
Background
Refugio Yanez Resendiz, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in April 1989. On November 20, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him and issued a Notice to Appear. He filed an amended application for cancellation of removal on March 25, 2026, and his removal proceedings remained pending before the immigration court while he remained in custody.
Resendiz filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that his detention without a bond hearing was unlawful on multiple grounds: it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), substantive and procedural due process, equal protection, and the Suspension Clause, and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). He also argued that his warrantless arrest violated the Accardi doctrine, which requires federal agencies to follow their own regulations.
Respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that Resendiz was lawfully subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) as an applicant for admission — a classification that applies to noncitizens who entered the country without being formally admitted.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition in full. Applying Fifth Circuit precedent from Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), the court held that because Resendiz entered without admission, he is deemed an applicant for admission and is therefore subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) with no entitlement to a bond hearing. The APA and Suspension Clause claims were foreclosed because habeas corpus provided an adequate avenue for relief and § 1252 did not strip the court of jurisdiction over the petition.
The court rejected the due process claims, relying on the Supreme Court’s holding in Demore v. Kim that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process. Because Congress determines what rights applicants for admission possess, and § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until certain proceedings conclude, no procedural due process right to a bond hearing attached. The court similarly rejected the equal protection claim, finding Resendiz failed to identify a similarly situated class treated more favorably and did not allege facts placing him outside the statutory definition of an applicant for admission.
On the Accardi doctrine claim, the court held that even assuming Resendiz’s arrest was warrantless in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii), an unlawful arrest has no bearing on the legality of detention following that arrest. Accordingly, no habeas relief was available on that ground.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who entered the U.S. without formal admission are classified as applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2) and are subject to mandatory detention with no statutory or constitutional right to a bond hearing during pending removal proceedings.
- Pre-removal-order detention under § 1225(b)(2) does not violate substantive due process even when it exceeds six months, distinguishing the post-removal-order context addressed in Zadvydas v. Davis.
- An allegedly unlawful warrantless arrest does not invalidate subsequent immigration detention; the legality of the detention is assessed independently of the circumstances of the arrest.
- APA challenges to immigration detention are foreclosed where habeas corpus provides an adequate alternative remedy, and Suspension Clause challenges fail where federal court jurisdiction over habeas petitions is preserved.
Why It Matters
This decision reflects a consistent line of rulings from the Southern District of Texas applying the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 Buenrostro-Mendez decision, which cemented the broad reach of mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) for the large population of noncitizens who entered the country without inspection. Attorneys representing long-term U.S. residents detained during removal proceedings face a narrowing set of arguments in this circuit, as courts have systematically rejected INA, due process, equal protection, APA, and Suspension Clause challenges to prolonged pre-removal-order custody.
The ruling also underscores the practical limits of the Accardi doctrine in the immigration detention context: even documented procedural violations in the arrest itself — such as a warrantless detention allegedly in breach of agency regulations — will not secure release if the underlying statutory authority for continued detention is otherwise valid. Immigration counsel should account for these constraints when advising clients and evaluating habeas strategies in the Fifth Circuit.