Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rusber Gonzalez-Barretto, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in May 2026. Immigration authorities served him with a Notice to Appear charging him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled.
An immigration judge granted Gonzalez-Barretto post-conclusion voluntary departure on July 31, 2026. He appealed that decision and remained in immigration custody. He then petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause.
The federal respondents sought summary judgment, contending that Gonzalez-Barretto was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Gonzalez-Barretto’s presence in the United States without admission made him an applicant for admission and therefore subjected him to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that the statute authorized his continued detention while the relevant immigration proceedings remained pending.
The court also rejected Gonzalez-Barretto’s substantive, procedural, and as-applied due-process challenges. 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 and Gonzalez-Barretto identified no authority supporting a viable as-applied challenge under his circumstances, the court held that due process did not entitle him to a bond hearing.
The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition and related requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, 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 Gonzalez-Barretto’s detention without a bond hearing while the relevant immigration proceedings continued.
- The court found no substantive, procedural, or as-applied due-process basis for habeas relief.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to detention without a bond hearing under § 1225(b)(2). It confirms that, in the Southern District of Texas, a person classified as an applicant for admission may remain mandatorily detained through the applicable immigration proceedings even after receiving and appealing a grant of post-conclusion voluntary departure.