Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Katherine Marcela Portillo Garcia, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2019. Immigration authorities served her with a notice to appear and released her on her own recognizance. She applied for asylum, and a superseding notice later charged her as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present without admission or parole.
In February 2025, an immigration judge denied Portillo Garcia’s asylum application and ordered her removed to Honduras. Her administrative appeal remained pending when Immigration and Customs Enforcement took her into custody in February 2026. She subsequently filed a Violence Against Women Act I-360 petition, which also remained pending.
Portillo Garcia petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that her continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that she 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 Portillo Garcia’s presence in the United States without admission made her an applicant for admission and therefore subjected her to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Relying on Fifth Circuit authority, the court concluded that detention during her removal proceedings did not violate substantive due process.
The court also rejected her procedural due-process claim. It reasoned that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute and that § 1225(b)(2) requires detention until the specified proceedings conclude. Portillo Garcia therefore had no procedural due-process right to a bond hearing.
The court was not persuaded that a nationwide preliminary injunction concerning policies for victim-based immigration benefits, entered in separate and still-pending litigation, independently entitled Portillo Garcia to habeas relief. It granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition, and stated that final judgment would be entered for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission is treated as an applicant for admission and may be subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that detention during pending removal proceedings did not violate substantive or procedural due process.
- The court declined to treat a preliminary injunction entered in separate litigation over victim-based immigration benefits as an independent basis for habeas relief.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to deny a bond hearing to a person detained under § 1225(b)(2), even though she had previously been released, had an administrative appeal pending, and had filed a VAWA-based immigration petition.
For immigration practitioners in the Southern District of Texas, the decision underscores the difficulty of obtaining habeas relief from mandatory detention on due-process grounds while removal proceedings remain unresolved.