Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alberto Alejandro Falcon Levya, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States in 2022. Immigration and Customs Enforcement initially detained and then released him, but re-detained him at a routine immigration check-in on January 24, 2026, under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). He was placed in removal proceedings and ordered removed.
Falcon Levya appealed the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals, so the order was not yet final. He petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. It held that Falcon Levya was an “applicant for admission” because he was present in the United States without having been admitted. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, he was therefore subject to mandatory detention while his removal proceedings remained pending.
The court also rejected both substantive and procedural due-process challenges. It concluded that detention during ongoing removal proceedings is a constitutionally valid part of the removal process and distinguished precedent addressing potentially indefinite detention after a final removal order. Because an applicant for admission receives the process Congress has prescribed, and § 1225(b) does not provide a bond hearing, the court held that the absence of such a hearing did not violate procedural due process. A vacated Fifth Circuit panel opinion recognizing a 90-day limit had no precedential force after rehearing en banc was granted.
Key Takeaways
- A person present in the United States without having been admitted is an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
- Detention without a bond hearing during still-pending removal proceedings did not violate substantive or procedural due process in this case.
- The court declined to rely on a Fifth Circuit panel decision imposing a 90-day limit because the grant of rehearing en banc vacated that opinion.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority to foreclose statutory bond-hearing claims by applicants for admission detained during removal proceedings. It also treats constitutional challenges to that detention differently from challenges involving post-removal-order detention, where removal may no longer be reasonably foreseeable.
For immigration habeas practitioners, the ruling underscores that a nonfinal removal order and a pending administrative appeal may support continued mandatory detention under § 1225(b), without an individualized bond hearing.