Reported / Citable
Background
Dayron Anaya Atencio, a native and citizen of Cuba, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention.
The uncontroverted summary-judgment evidence showed that Atencio had not been admitted to the United States. The court therefore treated him as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied Atencio’s habeas petition.
The court held that Fifth Circuit decisions in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed Atencio’s claims for habeas relief. It dismissed the case and denied any remaining motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- An immigrant who has not been admitted to the United States is an applicant for admission under § 1225(b).
- The court concluded that § 1225(b) required Atencio’s mandatory detention.
- Controlling Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed the requested habeas relief.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit immigration-detention precedent to reject a § 2241 challenge by an applicant for admission. It underscores that district courts in the circuit will dismiss claims inconsistent with those controlling decisions.