Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Amanda Chacon Contreras, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States unlawfully in June 2023 and was placed in expedited removal proceedings. After credible-fear proceedings, the Department of Homeland Security issued her a notice to appear and released her through an alternative-to-detention program.
In May 2026, an immigration judge denied Chacon Contreras’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture and ordered her removed. Her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending, so the removal order was not yet final. While detained as an applicant for admission, she sought habeas relief, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted summary judgment to the government and denied the habeas petition. It held that Chacon Contreras qualified as an applicant for admission and was therefore subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) while her removal proceedings remained pending. The court treated the Fifth Circuit’s vacated panel decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega as having no precedential value.
The court also rejected both constitutional theories. It held that detention during ongoing removal proceedings was a constitutionally permissible part of the removal process and that the concerns governing potentially indefinite post-removal-order detention did not apply. Because an applicant for admission receives the process Congress prescribed, and Section 1225(b) does not provide a bond hearing, the court found no procedural due-process violation. It further held that the APA supplied no avenue for review because habeas corpus was an adequate remedy for a claim challenging the legality of confinement.
Key Takeaways
- An individual present in the United States without having been admitted may be treated as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b).
- The court held that neither substantive nor procedural due process required a bond hearing while removal proceedings remained pending.
- An APA claim was unavailable because habeas corpus provided an adequate judicial remedy for the detention challenge.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority broadly to noncitizens who entered without admission, even when they were previously released and later detained while pursuing immigration appeals. In the court’s view, Section 1225(b) authorizes mandatory detention throughout the still-pending removal process without an individualized bond hearing.
The ruling also illustrates the consequences of en banc rehearing: once the Fifth Circuit vacated the panel opinion in Sosnava Rodriguez, its proposed 90-day limit before a bond hearing no longer furnished binding support for habeas relief.