Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Meron Negash Abreham, an Ethiopian citizen, entered the United States without authorization and was apprehended by immigration officials on October 10, 2024. After admitting that she was unlawfully present, she was detained and placed in removal proceedings through a December 12, 2024 notice to appear.
An immigration judge ordered Abreham removed, but the order was not final because her appeal remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Abreham petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that her continued detention without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) violated the Fifth Amendment. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Abreham was an “applicant for admission” because she was present in the United States without having been admitted. Under § 1225(b), as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, she was subject to mandatory detention while her removal proceedings remained pending and had no statutory right to a bond hearing.
The court also rejected both substantive and procedural due-process challenges. It concluded that detention during pending removal proceedings is a constitutionally valid part of the removal process and distinguished the post-removal-order detention addressed in Zadvydas v. Davis. Because Abreham had not been admitted to the country, the court found that she was entitled only to the process Congress provided, which does not include a bond hearing under § 1225(b).
The court further explained that the vacated panel decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega had no precedential value after the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. It therefore granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition, and denied any remaining motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present in the United States without having been admitted is treated as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b).
- Section 1225(b) does not provide applicants for admission with a right to periodic bond hearings while removal proceedings remain pending.
- A vacated Fifth Circuit panel opinion imposing a 90-day limit before a bond hearing supplied no binding authority for habeas relief.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit precedent to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to detention without bond for applicants for admission whose removal proceedings are ongoing. It also underscores the distinction between detention during removal proceedings and potentially indefinite detention after a final removal order.
For immigration practitioners in the Fifth Circuit, the ruling indicates that prolonged pre-final-order detention alone does not establish a right to a bond hearing under § 1225(b), at least under the authorities applied by this court.