Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Darne de la Caridad Romero Tellez, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States in October 2022 and was apprehended by Border Patrol. She was placed in expedited removal proceedings and released under an alternative-to-detention program. After her arrest during a workplace police raid in March 2026, she was returned to immigration custody and charged as inadmissible under § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
After Romero Tellez expressed a fear of persecution, the Department of Homeland Security conducted a credible-fear interview and made a negative finding. An immigration judge affirmed that finding, ordered her removed to Cuba, and later denied her effort to reopen the credible-fear process. While DHS worked to arrange her removal, Romero Tellez petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that her continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. It held that Romero Tellez was an applicant for admission subject to expedited removal and therefore was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
The court further held that the mandatory detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process. Detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible, the court reasoned, and an applicant for admission has only those admission-related rights that Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(1) mandates detention in these circumstances, Romero Tellez was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing. The court also noted that the Fifth Circuit opinion on which she relied had been vacated and that any challenge to her conditions of confinement was not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas proceeding.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant for admission in expedited removal proceedings is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
- The court held that such detention does not create a substantive- or procedural-due-process right to a bond hearing.
- A conditions-of-confinement claim is not cognizable through a § 2241 habeas petition in this court.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Southern District of Texas’s view that noncitizens treated as applicants for admission and placed in expedited removal proceedings may be detained without an individualized bond hearing. It also underscores that litigants cannot rely on a vacated appellate decision as authority for habeas relief.