Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sergio Andres Varela Hernandez, a Colombian citizen, entered the United States without inspection in January 2023. Immigration authorities later charged him as inadmissible for being present without having been admitted or paroled, and took him into custody in June 2026.
An immigration judge ordered Varela Hernandez removed to Colombia in August 2026. He reserved his right to appeal and remained detained. He petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process, and he also sought appointed counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted summary judgment to the federal respondents and denied the habeas petition. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, it held that a person present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission and is therefore subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The court further held that mandatory detention during the relevant immigration proceedings did not violate substantive or procedural due process and that Varela Hernandez was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing. It also denied his request for appointed counsel because federal habeas proceedings are civil actions, there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in such cases, and the petition presented no extraordinary circumstances warranting an appointment.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission may be classified as an applicant for admission and detained under § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that detention under § 1225(b)(2) did not give the petitioner a constitutional right to a bond hearing.
- Appointment of counsel was unwarranted because the civil habeas case presented no extraordinary circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority treating noncitizens who entered without inspection as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention. In the Southern District of Texas, that framework foreclosed the petitioner’s constitutional demand for an individualized bond hearing while his immigration proceedings remained pending.