Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cesar Gomez Jalomo, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2000. In February 2025, he was transferred from Montgomery County Sheriff’s custody to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which served him with a Notice to Appear charging inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present without admission or parole. An immigration judge granted him bond in March 2025, and he was released. ICE re-apprehended him in Huntsville, Texas, in December 2025.
In March 2026, an immigration judge pretermitted Gomez Jalomo’s applications for relief and ordered him removed to Mexico. He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and that appeal remained pending at the time of this decision. He filed a federal habeas petition challenging his continued detention without a bond hearing.
Petitioner argued that his warrantless detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, substantive and procedural due process, the Suspension Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He also contended that his warrantless arrest violated the Accardi doctrine. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Petitioner is lawfully subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
Senior District Judge Sim Lake granted summary judgment in favor of the government and denied the habeas petition in full. The court held that because Gomez Jalomo entered without inspection, he is deemed an applicant for admission and is therefore subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), with no entitlement to a bond hearing. The court relied on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which compelled that result and rendered contrary district court authority inapplicable.
The court further held that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) does not violate substantive or procedural due process. Citing Demore v. Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708 (2003), the court reaffirmed that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. Because Congress has the authority to define the rights of aliens seeking admission by statute, and § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until certain proceedings conclude, no bond hearing is required as a matter of procedural due process.
The court also rejected Petitioner’s Accardi doctrine challenge, holding that an unlawful arrest does not affect the legality of subsequent detention. Petitioner’s Suspension Clause and APA claims were likewise found foreclosed under prior Southern District of Texas precedent.
Key Takeaways
- Under Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (5th Cir. 2026), aliens who entered without inspection are deemed applicants for admission and are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), with no right to a bond hearing.
- Mandatory immigration detention during removal proceedings does not violate due process under Demore v. Kim; Congress may condition admission rights by statute, and § 1225(b)(2) satisfies that standard.
- An allegedly unlawful warrantless arrest does not provide a basis for habeas relief from subsequent detention — the legality of the arrest is separate from the legality of the detention.
- Suspension Clause and APA challenges to mandatory immigration detention remain foreclosed in the Southern District of Texas consistent with recent district court precedent.
Why It Matters
This decision reflects the growing body of post-Buenrostro-Mendez district court authority holding that undocumented aliens are subject to mandatory detention without bond as applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2). It underscores a significant circuit-level split and reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s approach, which forecloses bond hearings for a large class of immigration detainees — including those with long-standing U.S. ties and pending appellate proceedings.
For immigration practitioners in the Fifth Circuit, the decision illustrates the limited avenues for habeas relief available to § 1225(b)(2) detainees. Arguments grounded in due process, the Accardi doctrine, the Suspension Clause, and the APA have all been rejected by courts in this district, leaving appellate proceedings before the BIA and the Fifth Circuit as the primary relief mechanisms for this population.