Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mehran Ghorbani, an Iranian citizen, unlawfully entered the United States in 2025 and was immediately taken into immigration custody. He was placed in expedited-removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), underwent credible-fear proceedings, and received a notice to appear in August 2025.
In October 2025, Ghorbani’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture were denied, and he was ordered removed. His appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending, so the removal order was not yet final. Ghorbani petitioned for habeas relief, 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 lifted the stay, granted the government summary judgment, and denied the habeas petition. It held that Ghorbani was an “applicant for admission” because he was present in the United States without having been admitted and therefore remained subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) while his removal proceedings continued. The court found any statutory argument for a bond hearing foreclosed by § 1225 and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
The court also rejected Ghorbani’s substantive and procedural due-process claims. It concluded that detention during ongoing removal proceedings was a constitutionally permissible 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 does not provide a bond hearing, the court held that Ghorbani’s detention without one did not violate procedural due process. It also explained that the vacated panel opinion in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega had no precedential value after rehearing en banc was granted.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission and is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) while removal proceedings remain pending.
- The court held that continued detention without a bond hearing during Ghorbani’s ongoing removal proceedings violated neither substantive nor procedural due process.
- The court declined to extend post-final-removal-order concerns about indefinite detention to a case in which the removal proceedings and administrative appeal had not concluded.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces within the Southern District of Texas that applicants for admission detained under § 1225(b) generally cannot obtain a bond hearing merely because their removal proceedings have continued for an extended period. It also illustrates the limited force of a circuit panel ruling once that opinion has been vacated for rehearing en banc.