Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gloria Aracely Regalado De Gomez, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without inspection on an unknown date. Immigration authorities took her into custody on September 18, 2025, and charged her as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because she was present without having been admitted or paroled.
An immigration judge denied Regalado De Gomez’s application for cancellation of removal on March 23, 2026. While her appeal remained pending and she remained detained, she petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause. The respondents sought summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required her detention as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Regalado De Gomez’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 this mandatory detention did not violate substantive due process because detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process.
The court also rejected the procedural-due-process claim. Because an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute, and § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until the specified proceedings conclude, the court held that Regalado De Gomez was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing. It granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission or parole is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Section 1225(b)(2) required Regalado De Gomez’s detention while the relevant immigration proceedings remained pending.
- The court held that neither substantive nor procedural due process entitled her to a bond hearing and denied habeas relief.
Why It Matters
The decision applies mandatory-detention principles to a noncitizen who entered without inspection and is pursuing an administrative appeal after denial of cancellation of removal. In the Southern District of Texas, it reinforces the view that detainees governed by § 1225(b)(2) cannot obtain a bond hearing through a due-process challenge merely because their removal proceedings remain unresolved.