Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Edin David Vasquez-Joj, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2008. Immigration authorities encountered him in a Texas jail in 2017, took him into custody, and charged him as inadmissible because he was present without having been admitted or paroled. An immigration judge granted him bond later that month.
In March 2022, an immigration judge ordered Vasquez-Joj removed to Guatemala, but his appeal remained pending. Immigration officers took him back into custody in July 2026 after another jail encounter. Vasquez-Joj petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The government sought summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required his detention as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Vasquez-Joj was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, it explained that a noncitizen present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission.
The court also held that detention without a bond hearing did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It reasoned that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until the relevant proceedings conclude, Vasquez-Joj had no procedural-due-process right to a bond hearing.
The court therefore granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition, and stated that it would enter final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A person present in the United States without having been admitted is treated as an applicant for admission under the controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Section 1225(b)(2) required Vasquez-Joj’s detention while the relevant immigration proceedings remained unresolved.
- The court rejected both substantive- and procedural-due-process challenges to detention without a bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to foreclose bond-hearing claims by certain noncitizens detained under § 1225(b)(2). For practitioners in the Southern District of Texas, it indicates that a pending appeal from a removal order does not itself create a constitutional entitlement to an individualized bond hearing when the petitioner is classified as an applicant for admission.