Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Armando Roberto Guerra Vasquez, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection on March 11, 2022. Six days later, immigration authorities served him with a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement took Guerra Vasquez into custody on January 5, 2026, and he remained detained when the court ruled. He petitioned for habeas relief and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and due process and that his warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. Respondents moved for summary judgment, maintaining that § 1225(b)(2) required his detention as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Guerra Vasquez’s presence in the country without admission made him an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Relying on Fifth Circuit authority, the court concluded that this mandatory detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process.
The court further held that Guerra Vasquez was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing because applicants for admission possess only the admission-related rights Congress has provided, and § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until specified proceedings conclude. It also rejected his Fourth Amendment theory as foreclosed because that claim depended on the assertion that the government lacked authority to detain him under § 1225.
Accordingly, the court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition and requests for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief, and stated that it would enter final judgment for respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A person present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission and may be subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that mandatory detention under that provision did not violate substantive or procedural due process and did not require a bond hearing.
- The petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim failed because it rested on the rejected premise that the government lacked statutory authority to detain him.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit precedent to reject constitutional challenges to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) by a person who entered without inspection. It reinforces that, in the Southern District of Texas, detainees classified as applicants for admission cannot obtain bond hearings merely by invoking substantive or procedural due process.
The ruling also shows that a Fourth Amendment challenge premised on the absence of detention authority will fail when § 1225(b)(2) supplies that authority.