Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Diana Rivera Nunez, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2003. Immigration authorities took her into custody on June 27, 2026, and served her with a Notice to Appear charging her as removable for being present without admission or parole.
Rivera Nunez petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that her continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that she 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 Rivera Nunez’s presence in the United States without admission made her an applicant for admission and therefore subjected her to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). It concluded that such detention during removal proceedings did not violate substantive due process.
The court also rejected her procedural due-process claim, reasoning that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute and that § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until specified proceedings conclude. Accordingly, the court held that Rivera Nunez was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing.
The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied Rivera Nunez’s habeas petition and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. It stated that it would enter a final judgment in favor of the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A person present without having been admitted is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) did not violate substantive or procedural due process and did not require a bond hearing.
- The court granted respondents summary judgment, denied the petition and related complaint, and said a final judgment would be entered separately.
Why It Matters
The decision applies § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory-detention framework to a noncitizen who entered without inspection and later was placed in removal proceedings. It also underscores that, under the court’s analysis, due process does not independently supply a right to a bond hearing for an applicant for admission detained under that provision.