Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Roberto Alvarez Daniel, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection in January 2024. He was served with a notice to appear charging him as removable for being present without admission or parole, then released on his own recognizance.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement took Daniel into custody in April 2026. The following month, an immigration judge denied his asylum application and ordered him removed to Cuba. While his appeal remained pending, Daniel petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. 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 Daniel was an applicant for admission because he was present in the United States without having been admitted. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that § 1225(b)(2) therefore subjected him to mandatory detention while the relevant immigration proceedings continued.
The court further held that this mandatory detention violated neither substantive nor procedural due process. Detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible, the court reasoned, and an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention and does not provide Daniel a bond hearing in these circumstances, procedural due process did not independently entitle him to one. The court granted the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, denied the habeas petition, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission is treated as an applicant for admission and may be subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that detention during Daniel’s ongoing removal proceedings did not violate substantive due process.
- Daniel was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing because § 1225(b)(2) mandated his detention and applicants for admission possess only the admission-related rights Congress has conferred.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to reject a due-process challenge to detention under § 1225(b)(2). Within the Southern District of Texas, it reinforces the government’s ability to detain without a bond hearing certain noncitizens who entered without inspection and remain in ongoing removal proceedings.