Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sandra Violeta Rugama Moncada, a Nicaraguan national, entered the United States without admission or parole on December 13, 2022. She was served with a Notice to Appear on August 12, 2024, charging her with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. On March 5, 2026, she was transferred from Bell County Jail into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, where she remained at the time of the court’s decision.
Rugama Moncada filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that her continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The government responded with a motion for summary judgment, contending that she was lawfully subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), the court held that because Rugama Moncada entered without admission, she 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 further held that this mandatory detention scheme violates neither substantive nor procedural due process. Citing Demore v. Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708 (2003), the court reaffirmed that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process. Because Rugama Moncada’s rights regarding admission are limited to what Congress has provided by statute, and § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention of admission applicants until specified proceedings conclude, she has no procedural due process right to a bond hearing.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who enter the United States without admission or parole are classified as applicants for admission and are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), with no right to a bond hearing.
- The Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (2026) forecloses due process challenges to mandatory detention of such individuals in the Fifth Circuit.
- An individual in this posture possesses only the rights regarding admission that Congress has expressly granted by statute — constitutional due process does not independently compel a bond hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision applies and reinforces a significant line of authority holding that individuals who enter without inspection have no constitutional right to a bond hearing during removal proceedings. With the Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro-Mendez decision now firmly in place, district courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are bound to reject due process challenges to § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention brought by noncitizens who entered without admission.
For immigration practitioners, the ruling underscores the difficulty of challenging prolonged detention through habeas petitions in the Southern District of Texas absent a change in controlling circuit precedent or intervention by the Supreme Court. Attorneys representing similarly situated clients should be aware that both substantive and procedural due process arguments are foreclosed under current Fifth Circuit law.