Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Faraidon Alimi, an Afghan citizen, unlawfully entered the United States in 2025 and was immediately placed in immigration custody and expedited removal proceedings. After credible-fear proceedings, the Department of Homeland Security issued him a notice to appear. An immigration judge later denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture and ordered him removed.
Alimi appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, so his removal order was not yet final. While detained as an applicant for admission, he petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) violated his constitutional rights. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted summary judgment to the government and denied Alimi’s habeas petition. It held that Alimi was an “applicant for admission” because he was present in the United States without having been admitted and therefore was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) while his removal proceedings remained pending. The court concluded that any statutory challenge was foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
The court also rejected Alimi’s substantive and procedural due-process claims. It reasoned that detention during ongoing removal proceedings is a constitutionally valid part of the removal process and distinguished precedent addressing potentially indefinite detention after a final removal order. Because Alimi had never been admitted, the court held that he was entitled only to the process Congress provided for applicants for admission, which does not include a bond hearing. A vacated Fifth Circuit panel decision requiring a bond hearing after 90 days had no precedential effect because rehearing en banc had been granted.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present in the United States without having been admitted is treated as an applicant for admission and is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
- The court held that detention without a bond hearing during still-pending removal proceedings violated neither substantive nor procedural due process.
- Constitutional limits on prolonged post-removal-order detention did not govern because Alimi’s administrative appeal remained pending and his removal order was not final.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that, within the Fifth Circuit, applicants for admission generally cannot obtain bond hearings merely because detention continues while removal proceedings are underway. It also illustrates the practical effect of vacating a panel opinion for rehearing en banc: the vacated decision supplies no binding precedent for district courts considering similar habeas petitions.