Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Manuel Campos Chairez, a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without inspection in 2002, was apprehended by the Galveston County Constables Office on July 10, 2026, and transferred to immigration custody the next day. Immigration authorities served him with a Notice to Appear charging him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
Campos Chairez petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, due process, equal protection, and the Suspension Clause. He also asserted that his warrantless arrest violated the Accardi doctrine. 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 granted summary judgment to the respondents and denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court held that a noncitizen present without admission is an applicant for admission and therefore is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). It further held that this detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process and that Campos Chairez was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing.
The court rejected the equal-protection claim because Campos Chairez did not identify a similarly situated group receiving more favorable treatment or allege facts placing him outside the statutory definition of an applicant for admission. It also held that the alleged warrantless arrest could not support habeas relief under the Accardi doctrine because an unlawful arrest does not affect the legality of the ensuing detention. The court concluded that the Suspension Clause and any Administrative Procedure Act theory were foreclosed as a matter of law.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who entered without inspection is treated as an applicant for admission and is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that mandatory detention during removal proceedings did not entitle Campos Chairez to a bond hearing under substantive or procedural due process.
- An allegedly unlawful warrantless arrest did not invalidate the petitioner’s subsequent immigration detention or provide a basis for habeas relief under the Accardi doctrine.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit precedent to reject constitutional challenges to detention without a bond hearing for noncitizens classified as applicants for admission. Within the Southern District of Texas, it reinforces that habeas petitioners in this category cannot obtain a bond hearing merely by invoking due process, equal protection, the Suspension Clause, or alleged defects in the initial arrest.