Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alejandro Gonzalez-Buenestro, a Mexican citizen, was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on July 28, 2026. That day, the government served him with a Notice to Appear charging that he was present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. He remained detained at the Montgomery ICE Processing Center while removal proceedings were pending.
Gonzalez-Buenestro petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his detention without an individualized bond hearing violated procedural due process. He sought release within one day. The government requested a stay pending en banc proceedings in a related Fifth Circuit case or, alternatively, summary judgment on the ground that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) required his detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the requested stay, concluding that the Fifth Circuit’s interim order staying the judgments in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega did not require district courts to halt other cases. It also excused Gonzalez-Buenestro’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the Board of Immigration Appeals had already held that immigration judges lack bond authority over similarly situated noncitizens, and the BIA could not adjudicate his constitutional claim.
On the merits, the court held that controlling Fifth Circuit precedent classified a noncitizen present without admission or parole as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). It further held that procedural due process did not require a bond hearing because flight risk and dangerousness are irrelevant under that statutory scheme, which mandates detention without making either issue a condition of custody. The court denied the habeas petition with prejudice, denied the government’s stay motion, and granted the government summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, a noncitizen present in the United States without admission or parole is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- The court held that procedural due process does not require an individualized bond hearing when dangerousness and flight risk do not affect whether the governing statute mandates detention.
- Administrative exhaustion was excused as futile because binding BIA precedent foreclosed bond relief and the BIA lacked authority to decide the constitutional claim.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit precedent to reject habeas challenges seeking bond hearings for noncitizens detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A), even when removal proceedings remain pending and no individualized assessment of flight risk or dangerousness has occurred.
It also confirms that the Fifth Circuit’s stay in the related Sosnava Rodriguez litigation did not prevent Southern District of Texas judges from deciding similar detention challenges while en banc review remained pending.