Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Despaigne v. Thompson — Court upholds mandatory detention of Cuban immigrant pending removal proceedings

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Robert Carlos Camajuani Despaigne v. Raymond Thompson, et al.
Court
U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
Judge
Sim Lake
Date Decided
July 17, 2026
Docket No.
4:25-cv-05305
Topics
Immigration Law; Habeas Corpus; Detention; Due Process

Background

Robert Carlos Camajuani Despaigne, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection in June 2022. On June 29, 2022, he received a Notice to Appear charging removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). On June 12, 2025, an immigration judge dismissed his removal proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(a)(7), and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this dismissal on December 19, 2025. However, despite the dismissal of proceedings, Despaigne remained in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.

On April 15, 2026, Despaigne was served with a new Notice to Appear, again charging removability. He filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that his detention from December 19, 2025 to April 15, 2026—the period between the dismissal of his removal proceedings and receipt of the new notice—was unlawful because no legal authority supported his continued detention during that interval.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied Despaigne’s habeas petition. The court held that Despaigne is currently subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because he was served with a Notice to Appear charging removability under the statutes cited. The period of unlawful detention between December 19, 2025 and April 15, 2026 is “irrelevant to the resolution of the legality of [Petitioner’s] current detention,” since the controlling legal standard focuses on whether current detention is lawful.

The court rejected Despaigne’s due process challenge to mandatory detention, citing Demore v. Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708 (2003), for the proposition that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. The court also held that Despaigne is not entitled to a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due process, reasoning that aliens have only those rights regarding admission that Congress has granted by statute. Finally, the court denied Despaigne’s motion for appointment of counsel, finding no constitutional right to counsel on habeas review absent extraordinary circumstances.

Key Takeaways

  • Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) for applicants for admission does not violate the Constitution, even if prior detention periods lack legal basis.
  • Courts assess the legality of detention based on current legal status rather than past periods of potentially unlawful confinement.
  • Aliens challenging detention on due process grounds cannot compel bond hearings absent Congressional authorization.
  • There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for habeas corpus review in immigration detention cases absent extraordinary circumstances.

Why It Matters

This decision reinforces the government’s broad authority to detain immigrants pending removal proceedings without providing bond hearings or extensive procedural protections. For immigration practitioners, it signals that gaps or irregularities in the legal basis for prior detention may not provide an avenue for release if the immigrant is subsequently served with a proper charging document placing them in mandatory detention status. The holding affects thousands of detained immigrants, particularly those without lawful status, and demonstrates that the Demore framework remains robust in the Fifth Circuit.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top