Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Mercedes Diaz Lara, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection and was charged as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He was taken into immigration custody on August 18, 2026, and remained detained when the court issued its decision.
Diaz Lara petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that he was an applicant for admission subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Diaz Lara’s presence in the United States without admission made him an applicant for admission and therefore subjected him to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). It relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
The court further concluded, based on the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Rodriguez v. Vergara, that mandatory detention under that provision does not violate substantive or procedural due process. It granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition, and stated that final judgment would be entered for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, detention under § 1225(b)(2) is mandatory and does not violate substantive or procedural due process.
- The court denied habeas relief and entered summary judgment for the respondents.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit authority foreclosing due-process challenges to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). In the Southern District of Texas, a habeas petitioner classified as an applicant for admission cannot obtain a bond hearing merely by arguing that detention under that provision violates substantive or procedural due process.