Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jesus Serrano Alvarado, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 1980. After his May 2026 arrest in Texas for driving without a license, he was transferred to Department of Homeland Security custody and charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled.
An immigration judge ordered Serrano Alvarado removed to Mexico on July 21, 2026. He reserved his right to appeal and remained detained. He petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and due process and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The respondents moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. Relying on Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court held that Serrano Alvarado’s presence without admission made him an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The court held that this mandatory detention violated neither substantive nor procedural due process. It reasoned that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until the specified proceedings conclude, Serrano Alvarado was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing. The court also stated that his APA claim was foreclosed.
Key Takeaways
- A person present in the United States without admission may be treated as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- The court found no substantive or procedural due-process right to a bond hearing during that mandatory detention.
- The respondents received summary judgment, the habeas petition was denied, and final judgment was to be entered in their favor.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority to reject a bond-hearing claim by a long-present noncitizen classified as an applicant for admission. It indicates that, in the Southern District of Texas, the length of a person’s physical presence does not by itself prevent mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) when the person entered without inspection.
The ruling also reinforces that constitutional challenges to detention during ongoing removal proceedings face substantial obstacles when Congress has expressly mandated detention and the detainee is treated as seeking admission.