Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Melvin Fabricio Escobar-Mayorga, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States without inspection on an unknown date and was served with a Notice to Appear in February 2022. He was transferred from the Beaumont Police Department to immigration custody in April 2026.
An immigration judge ordered Escobar-Mayorga removed to Guatemala in May 2026. He appealed that decision and remained in immigration custody while the appeal was pending. Escobar-Mayorga then petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Escobar-Mayorga was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Because he was present in the country without having been admitted, the court treated him as an applicant for admission under the governing law.
The court further held that mandatory detention during his removal proceedings did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It reasoned that detention is a constitutionally permissible component of removal proceedings and that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(2) requires detention until specified proceedings conclude, Escobar-Mayorga had no procedural-due-process right to a bond hearing. The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, 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 may be treated as an applicant for admission and detained under § 1225(b)(2).
- The court found no substantive or procedural due-process violation arising from Escobar-Mayorga’s detention without a bond hearing.
- The pending appeal of the removal order did not entitle Escobar-Mayorga to habeas relief or an individualized bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision applies mandatory-detention principles to a noncitizen who entered without inspection and was still pursuing an appeal from a removal order. It reinforces the Southern District of Texas’s view that detainees governed by § 1225(b)(2) cannot obtain a bond hearing through a constitutional due-process claim while the statutorily specified proceedings remain unresolved.