Reported / Citable
Background
Francisco Geovanny Bolanos Torres, an ICE detainee, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued immigration detention. Through counsel, he sought relief on statutory and due-process grounds and raised arguments concerning bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the Accardi doctrine.
The government moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The record showed that Bolanos Torres entered the United States without inspection and had not been admitted.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen granted the government’s motion, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the case. Because Bolanos Torres had entered without inspection and had not been admitted, the court held that he was an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and subject to mandatory detention.
The court concluded that Fifth Circuit decisions in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed his statutory and due-process challenges. Those precedents also foreclosed his arguments for a bond hearing under § 1226(a), as well as his Accardi claim, which depended on classifying his detention under § 1226 rather than § 1225.
Key Takeaways
- An unadmitted noncitizen who entered without inspection is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b), the court held.
- Controlling Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed the detainee’s habeas claims challenging that detention.
- The court denied all other pending motions as moot after dismissing the action.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit immigration-detention precedent to reject a habeas challenge by an applicant for admission. It underscores that, in the Fifth Circuit, detainees covered by § 1225(b) cannot obtain relief by recasting their detention as governed by § 1226(a) or by invoking agency-regulation arguments premised on that classification.