Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aldo Guillermo Huerta Tapia, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection around 1993. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him on May 28, 2026, and 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.
Huerta Tapia remained in immigration custody and petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that detaining him without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and constitutional due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that he was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that Huerta Tapia’s presence in the United States without admission made him an applicant for admission under the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi. He was therefore subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
The court further held that this detention violated neither substantive nor procedural due process. Detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible, and an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(2) requires detention until specified proceedings conclude, Huerta Tapia had no procedural due-process right to a bond hearing. The court granted the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, denied the habeas petition, and stated that it would enter final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A person present in the United States without admission may be treated as an applicant for admission and detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) did not violate substantive or procedural due process in this case.
- Huerta Tapia was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing while the statutorily specified immigration proceedings remained pending.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to reject a habeas challenge by a longtime U.S. resident who entered without inspection. It confirms the Southern District of Texas’s view that § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention for applicants for admission and does not independently require a bond hearing.
For immigration practitioners, the decision underscores that the statutory classification governing detention can determine whether bond is available, even when the detained person has lived in the United States for decades.