Reported / Citable
Background
David Alexander Gonzalez Marquez, a noncitizen in ICE custody, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. Marquez entered the United States without inspection in 2016 and has since been placed in removal proceedings. He has not obtained lawful status in the country.
In his petition, Marquez raised multiple constitutional and statutory claims: arguments regarding bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection challenges; Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims; and a Suspension Clause argument. The court applied the preliminary review standard for habeas petitions, which permits dismissal on the pleadings if the petitioner plainly is not entitled to relief.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed Marquez’s petition entirely. The district judge held that because Marquez entered without inspection and lacks lawful status, he qualifies as an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), placing his bond-hearing arguments outside the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026).
On constitutional claims, the court found Marquez’s Fifth Amendment due process challenge barred by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), which established that detention during removal proceedings is “a constitutionally permissible part of that process.” His equal protection claim failed because he could not allege facts showing he fell outside the statutory definition of an applicant for admission or that similarly situated persons were treated more favorably. The court rejected his APA and Suspension Clause claims, concluding that habeas corpus remains the adequate and available remedy for immigration detention challenges and is the proper vehicle—not the APA—for such challenges.
Key Takeaways
- Detention of noncitizens who entered without inspection during removal proceedings does not violate the Fifth Amendment and is constitutionally permissible under Demore v. Kim.
- An applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) lacks access to bond hearings under § 1226(a), foreclosing a major class of detention challenges.
- Habeas corpus, not the Administrative Procedure Act, is the exclusive proper vehicle for challenging immigration detention, and its availability bars APA and Suspension Clause claims.
Why It Matters
This decision consolidates significant obstacles for noncitizens challenging immigration detention. By applying the status category of “applicant for admission” to those who entered without inspection, the court largely shields the government from judicial review of detention decisions at the bond-hearing stage. The ruling closes off three potential legal theories—APA review, Suspension Clause protection, and equal protection—leaving habeas corpus as the sole remedy, which itself faces the constitutional constraint established in Demore that detention is categorically permissible.
For immigration practitioners, the decision underscores the binding effect of Buenrostro-Mendez in the Fifth Circuit and the limited constitutional protections available to noncitizens in removal proceedings. It reflects a strict reading of statutory definitions and a narrow construction of due process rights in the immigration context, consistent with recent appellate and Supreme Court precedent.