Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nestor Andres Artiaga Ricardo, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection in June 2021. Immigration authorities charged him as removable for being present without admission or parole and released him on his own recognizance.
Authorities detained him again in March 2026 and issued a superseding Notice to Appear alleging the same ground of removability. Artiaga Ricardo petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated due process and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The government sought summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required his detention as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that Artiaga Ricardo’s presence without admission made him an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Relying on controlling Fifth Circuit authority, the court concluded that applying that detention framework to him was not impermissibly retroactive.
The court further held that the mandatory detention violated neither substantive nor procedural due process. Because detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and § 1225(b)(2) requires applicants for admission to remain detained until specified proceedings conclude, Artiaga Ricardo had no due-process right to a bond hearing. The court also concluded that precedent foreclosed his APA claim, granted the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, denied the habeas petition, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A person present in the United States without having been admitted is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Section 1225(b)(2) mandated Artiaga Ricardo’s detention during the relevant immigration proceedings without a bond hearing.
- The court rejected the petitioner’s substantive-due-process, procedural-due-process, APA, and retroactivity theories.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit precedent to foreclose bond-hearing challenges by certain noncitizens detained as applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2), even when they previously spent years in the United States after release from immigration custody.
For immigration practitioners in the Fifth Circuit, the ruling underscores that challenges framed under due process, the APA, or retroactivity principles may fail when mandatory detention follows from the detainee’s statutory status as an applicant for admission.