Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jaime Cortes Camancho, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2002. Immigration authorities took him into custody on May 21, 2026, and served him that day with a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled.
Camancho petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents sought summary judgment, contending that he was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Camancho’s presence in the United States without admission made him an applicant for admission and therefore subjected him to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Relying on Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court concluded that the statute governed his detention.
The court further held that mandatory detention during removal proceedings did not violate substantive or procedural due process. Because an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided and § 1225(b)(2) requires detention until specified proceedings conclude, Camancho had no procedural due-process right to a bond hearing. The court granted the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, denied the habeas petition, and stated that it would enter final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A person present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Section 1225(b)(2) mandates detention of covered applicants for admission while the specified immigration proceedings remain pending.
- The court rejected both substantive and procedural due-process challenges to detention without a bond hearing and denied habeas relief.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority treating noncitizens who entered without inspection as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention. It also confirms this court’s view that due process does not independently require a bond hearing for detention governed by § 1225(b)(2).
The petitioner cited the Fifth Circuit’s July 2, 2026 decision in Rodriguez v. Ortega, but that opinion had been vacated on July 10, 2026, and therefore did not support his requested relief.