Reported / Citable
Background
Nelson Javier Tenorio Zapata, a Nicaraguan national, entered the United States without inspection in 2022 and was subsequently placed in removal proceedings. While in ICE custody, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through counsel, challenging his continued detention.
Petitioner raised several grounds for relief: that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, that his detention constituted an equal protection violation, and that ICE’s actions were unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Suspension Clause.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen dismissed the petition on the pleadings under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, finding it plain from the face of the petition that Petitioner was not entitled to relief. Because Petitioner entered without inspection and never obtained lawful status, the court held he qualifies as an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), foreclosing any bond hearing claim under § 1226(a) per the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026).
The court rejected the due process claim on the authority of Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), which holds that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. The equal protection claim failed because Petitioner identified no similarly situated class treated more favorably. The APA claims were barred because habeas corpus provides an adequate remedy in court, and the Suspension Clause argument failed for the same reason — habeas itself remained available to him.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who enter the U.S. without inspection are classified as applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2) and are subject to mandatory detention; bond hearing rights under § 1226(a) do not apply to them under Buenrostro-Mendez.
- Due process challenges to immigration detention during pending removal proceedings remain foreclosed by Demore v. Kim at the pleading stage absent specific facts showing a constitutional violation.
- APA claims challenging immigration detention are unavailable where habeas corpus provides an adequate remedy, consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent guidance in Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670 (2025).
- Courts may summarily dismiss § 2241 immigration habeas petitions on the pleadings under Rule 4 when the petition and exhibits plainly show no entitlement to relief.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the narrowing legal landscape for immigration detainees challenging mandatory detention through habeas corpus in the Fifth Circuit. Following Buenrostro-Mendez, district courts in the circuit are consistently foreclosing § 1226(a) bond hearing claims for those who entered without inspection, treating such petitioners as applicants for admission subject to § 1225(b)’s mandatory detention scheme rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a).
The court’s reliance on Trump v. J.G.G. to bar APA-based detention challenges signals that, in this circuit, habeas corpus is both the required and the exclusive vehicle for contesting immigration confinement — a procedural limitation with significant practical consequences for detainees seeking injunctive or declaratory relief through alternate statutory routes.