Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Temur Pukhaev, a Russian citizen, entered the United States in 2022 and received humanitarian parole from Customs and Border Protection. Authorities also issued him a Notice to Appear, placing him in removal proceedings. Border Patrol apprehended him in September 2025, and he remained in immigration custody as an applicant for admission.
An immigration judge later ordered Pukhaev removed, but the order was not final because his appeal remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Pukhaev sought habeas relief, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted summary judgment to the government and denied Pukhaev’s habeas petition. It held that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required Pukhaev’s detention because he was present without having been admitted and therefore qualified as an applicant for admission. The court concluded that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Pukhaev’s statutory challenge.
The court also held that detention without a bond hearing did not violate substantive or procedural due process while Pukhaev’s removal proceedings remained pending. Because Congress did not provide applicants for admission a right to a bond hearing under § 1225(b), the limited process available to Pukhaev did not include one. The court further rejected his APA claim because habeas corpus provided an adequate alternative remedy and therefore precluded review under 5 U.S.C. § 704.
Key Takeaways
- An individual present in the United States without having been admitted is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
- The court found no substantive or procedural due-process right to a bond hearing while the applicant’s removal proceedings and administrative appeal remained pending.
- The APA did not supply an additional avenue for relief because habeas corpus was an adequate remedy for challenging the legality of the detention.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority treating § 1225(b) detention as mandatory for applicants for admission, including people previously released into the country on humanitarian parole. It also underscores that a vacated Fifth Circuit panel opinion requiring bond hearings after 90 days had no precedential force while the case awaited en banc rehearing.
For immigration practitioners, the ruling illustrates the substantial difficulty of obtaining a bond hearing through constitutional or APA claims when removal proceedings remain ongoing and the detainee has never been formally admitted to the United States.