Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose M. Romero Rangel, a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without inspection in 2002, was taken into immigration custody on April 13, 2026. He was charged as inadmissible under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
An immigration judge granted Romero Rangel cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents on August 14, 2026, but the Department of Homeland Security appealed. While that appeal remained pending, Romero Rangel sought habeas relief, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents moved for 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 Romero Rangel’s presence in the United States without admission made him an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) until his removal proceedings concluded. It relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
The court further concluded, based on the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Rodriguez v. Vergara, that this mandatory detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It therefore granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition, and stated that it would enter 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) requires detention until the conclusion of removal proceedings, including while the government’s administrative appeal remains pending.
- Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, that mandatory detention does not violate substantive or procedural due process.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit authority foreclosing due-process challenges to detention under § 1225(b)(2), even where an immigration judge has granted cancellation of removal but DHS has appealed. For practitioners in the Fifth Circuit, the ruling indicates that a habeas request for a bond hearing on these grounds is unlikely to succeed while removal proceedings remain unresolved.