Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wendy Christyna Morales Sum, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2008. Immigration authorities took her into custody on December 23, 2025, and two days later served her with a Notice to Appear charging her as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present without admission or parole.
While remaining in immigration custody, Morales Sum petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She argued that detaining her without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and constitutional due process. The government moved for summary judgment, asserting that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required her detention as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Morales Sum’s presence in the United States without admission made her an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). It concluded that the statute required her detention while the relevant immigration proceedings remained pending.
The court further held that mandatory detention without a bond hearing did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It reasoned that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of the removal process and that an applicant for admission has only those admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. The court therefore granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Section 1225(b)(2) mandates detention of applicants for admission while the specified immigration proceedings are pending.
- The court found no substantive or procedural due-process right to a bond hearing under these circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision applies mandatory-detention rules to a person who had lived in the United States for years after entering without inspection. Under the court’s analysis, the length of that physical presence did not alter her status as an applicant for admission or create a constitutional entitlement to a bond hearing.
The ruling also illustrates the difficulty of obtaining § 2241 relief from § 1225(b)(2) detention in the Southern District of Texas when the challenge rests on substantive or procedural due process.