Reported / Citable
Background
Abraan Puc Cecilio, represented by counsel, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while in ICE custody. He alleged that his continued confinement without an individualized determination of dangerousness or flight risk violated the Fifth Amendment.
Cecilio entered the United States from Mexico around November 2000 and had never been legally admitted. ICE took him into custody on October 3, 2026. The court substituted the warden as the sole respondent because the immediate custodian is the proper respondent in a challenge to present physical confinement.
The Court’s Holding
Senior U.S. District Judge Sim Lake dismissed the petition with prejudice at the Rule 4 screening stage. The court held that the petition, on its face, did not state a basis for habeas relief.
The court relied on the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnaya Rodriguez v. Vergara, which held that immigrants who have never been legally admitted to the United States are entitled only to the process Congress provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Because that provision mandates detention for applicants for admission and the Fifth Circuit held they are not entitled to an individualized hearing, the district court concluded that Cecilio could not obtain the hearing he sought.
Key Takeaways
- Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, an immigrant never legally admitted to the United States is not entitled to an individualized detention hearing under the Fifth Amendment.
- Section 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention for applicants for admission.
- The court dismissed the § 2241 petition with prejudice because the requested relief was foreclosed by controlling en banc precedent.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Fifth Circuit’s recent en banc ruling to dismiss an immigration-detention habeas petition without requiring a response from the government. In the Fifth Circuit, nonadmitted immigrants challenging mandatory detention on the ground that they lack an individualized danger-or-flight-risk hearing face controlling precedent rejecting that due-process theory.