Reported / Citable
Background
Domingo Jayar Perez, a Cuban national, entered the United States without admission or parole on June 27, 2021. He was apprehended nine days later, on July 6, 2021, and released on his own recognizance. Nearly five years later, on February 4, 2026, he was served with a Notice to Appear before an immigration court. At some point thereafter, Immigration and Customs Enforcement redetained him, and he remained in immigration custody at the time of the court’s decision.
Perez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process under the Fifth Amendment. The government responded by moving for summary judgment, contending that Perez is legally 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 without being formally admitted or paroled.
The Court’s Holding
Senior District Judge Sim Lake granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. The court held that because Perez entered without admission, he is deemed an applicant for admission under controlling Fifth Circuit authority, specifically Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), and is therefore subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) until removal proceedings conclude.
The court further held that this mandatory detention scheme violates neither substantive nor procedural due process. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Demore v. Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708 (2003), the court reiterated that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process. On procedural due process, the court reasoned that because noncitizens seeking admission possess only those rights Congress has chosen to confer by statute, and § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention without a bond hearing for applicants for admission, Perez had no statutory or constitutional entitlement to such a hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who enters the United States without admission or parole is classified as an “applicant for admission” under § 1225(b)(2) and is subject to mandatory detention throughout removal proceedings — regardless of how long ago the initial entry occurred.
- The Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi is controlling authority in the Southern District of Texas for the proposition that entry without admission triggers applicant-for-admission status and mandatory detention.
- Noncitizens in mandatory detention as applicants for admission have no due process right — substantive or procedural — to a bond hearing, because their admission rights are limited to what Congress has expressly provided by statute.
Why It Matters
This decision reflects a firm application of post-Buenrostro-Mendez law in the Southern District of Texas, foreclosing habeas challenges to mandatory immigration detention by noncitizens who entered without inspection. For immigration practitioners in the Fifth Circuit, the ruling underscores that the pathway to release for this class of detainees lies in the underlying removal proceedings — not in habeas litigation asserting a right to a bond hearing.
The case also illustrates the courts’ continued reliance on Demore v. Kim to rebuff due process attacks on mandatory civil immigration detention, a posture that shows no sign of shifting in the current judicial landscape. Practitioners representing Cuban and other nationals detained under § 1225(b)(2) should anticipate similar outcomes in the Southern District absent a change in circuit precedent.