Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lidsmilia Rodriguez Ulloa, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection in July 2022. The government served her with a notice to appear charging her as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because she was present without having been admitted or paroled.
Immigration authorities took Rodriguez Ulloa into custody in March 2026, and an immigration judge ordered her removed to Cuba in June 2026. While her appeal remained pending, she filed a habeas petition and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that her continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents sought summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required her detention as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that Rodriguez Ulloa was an applicant for admission because she was present in the United States without having been admitted. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court concluded that § 1225(b)(2) subjected her to mandatory detention during the relevant immigration proceedings.
The court further held that detention under § 1225(b)(2) did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It reasoned that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible component of that process and that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition and emergency motion, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Section 1225(b)(2) required Rodriguez Ulloa’s detention while her immigration proceedings remained pending.
- The court rejected her substantive and procedural due-process challenges and denied both habeas and emergency injunctive relief.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies Fifth Circuit precedent to foreclose a bond-hearing claim by a person detained as an applicant for admission under § 1225(b)(2). Within the Southern District of Texas, it reinforces the government’s authority to maintain mandatory detention during ongoing removal proceedings without providing the individualized bond hearing Rodriguez Ulloa requested.