Reported / Citable
Background
Karina B. Salazar Hernandez, an undocumented immigrant detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of her detention. The petitioner entered the United States without inspection and is currently in removal proceedings.
In her petition, Salazar Hernandez raised multiple constitutional and statutory claims, including Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection arguments, Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims, a Suspension Clause claim, and claims under the Accardi doctrine regarding the procedures used in her arrest.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the habeas petition on the pleadings, finding that Salazar Hernandez lacks entitlement to relief. Because she entered the United States without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, the court classified her as an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Under controlling Supreme Court precedent in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), detention of applicants for admission during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process.
The court rejected her Fifth Amendment claims, holding that detention during removal proceedings does not violate due process and that she failed to identify a similarly situated class treated more favorably to support an equal protection claim. Her APA and Suspension Clause claims were foreclosed because habeas corpus is an adequate remedy available to her. Finally, her Accardi doctrine claims based on ICE arrest procedures failed because 8 C.F.R. § 287.12 expressly provides that the regulations governing ICE procedures do not create enforceable rights in federal court.
Key Takeaways
- Detention of undocumented immigrants classified as applicants for admission is constitutionally permissible under established Supreme Court precedent.
- Habeas corpus, not the APA or Suspension Clause doctrine, is the proper vehicle for challenging immigration detention when habeas relief is available.
- ICE procedures and regulations, including those governing arrest, do not create enforceable legal rights in federal court under the Accardi doctrine.
- Fifth Circuit precedent from Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (Feb. 2026) forecloses bond hearing arguments for noncitizens without lawful status.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the narrow scope of judicial review available to undocumented immigrants challenging detention. By categorizing Salazar Hernandez as an applicant for admission rather than someone detained within the removal process, the court applied a highly restrictive framework that eliminates meaningful constitutional protections. The reliance on Demore—a 2003 decision—shows courts continue to uphold broad executive detention authority in immigration cases despite intervening Supreme Court decisions.
The ruling also clarifies that Internal ICE regulations cannot serve as a basis for federal court claims, even when potentially violated. This limits collateral challenges to detention based on agency procedure violations and channels all such claims through habeas corpus, which the court has now narrowed considerably under recent Fifth Circuit authority.