Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yusniel Matos Rosales, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States on an unknown date and received an I-94 granting parole through February 17, 2025. Immigration authorities took him into custody on June 19, 2026, and later served him with a Notice to Appear charging inadmissibility under § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Rosales filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that Rosales 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 Rosales was an applicant for admission because he was present in the United States without having been admitted. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that § 1225(b)(2) therefore required his detention.
The court further held that this mandatory detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied Rosales’s habeas petition, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission may be treated as an applicant for admission and detained under § 1225(b)(2).
- Under the controlling Fifth Circuit decisions cited by the court, mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) does not violate substantive or procedural due process.
- The court warned that Rosales must pursue disagreement with the ruling through an appeal, rather than a successive § 2241 petition repeating the same claims.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to reject a due-process challenge to detention without a bond hearing for an applicant for admission. It reinforces that, within the Fifth Circuit, detainees governed by § 1225(b)(2) cannot obtain habeas relief merely by asserting a constitutional entitlement to an individualized bond hearing.