Reported / Citable
Background
Guillermo Ruiz Avalos, a noncitizen detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention without a bond hearing. He had lived in the United States for several years after prior administrations chose not to apply the mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to him, instead treating him under the discretionary detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The current administration reclassified him as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225, triggering his detention without any bond proceeding.
Ruiz Avalos filed an amended petition in February 2026 asserting three theories of relief: (1) statutory arguments that §§ 1225 and 1226 did not authorize his detention without a bond hearing; (2) an Administrative Procedure Act claim alleging the government failed to follow required procedural steps before switching his detention basis; and (3) a Fifth Amendment due process claim that indefinite detention without an individualized bond determination violates constitutional guarantees. Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
The court found that it possessed subject matter jurisdiction to hear the habeas challenge but concluded that Ruiz Avalos was not entitled to any of the relief he sought, granting summary judgment for the government.
The Court’s Holding
On the statutory and APA claims, the court held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), foreclosed Ruiz Avalos’s arguments that §§ 1225 and 1226 required a bond hearing. The court noted that the two statutes overlap and that the government possesses authority to classify noncitizens under § 1225 regardless of how prior administrations exercised their discretion. Because no statutory, regulatory, or constitutional provision required the government to follow specific procedural steps before invoking § 1225 to its fullest extent, the APA claim also failed. The court further observed that § 1225(b)(2)(A) itself provides a procedural protection: mandatory detention attaches only after a USCIS officer determines the alien is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission, giving the noncitizen an opportunity to demonstrate entitlement before detention is imposed.
On the due process claim, the court aligned with the reasoning of several sister district courts — including Zuniga v. Lyons, Guzman-Diaz v. Noem, and Giron v. Noem — and circuit precedent in Banyee v. Garland, 115 F.4th 928 (8th Cir. 2024). Applying Supreme Court authority including Demore v. Kim, DHS v. Thuraissigiam, and Reno v. Flores, the court held that for noncitizens seeking admission, due process is satisfied by the procedures Congress chooses to provide through legislation. Because § 1225(b)(2)(A) supplies constitutionally adequate process, detention under that statute without a bond hearing does not violate the Fifth Amendment. The court acknowledged contrary decisions from other district courts but respectfully disagreed with them.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro-Mendez decision forecloses statutory arguments that §§ 1225 and 1226 require a bond hearing for applicants for admission detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- The government may shift a noncitizen’s detention from the § 1226 discretionary framework to the § 1225 mandatory framework without providing additional procedural steps or notice, as no statute, regulation, or constitutional provision bars such reclassification.
- For noncitizens in the applicant-for-admission posture, Fifth Amendment due process is satisfied by the procedures Congress enacted in § 1225; no individualized bond hearing is constitutionally required.
- The built-in protection in § 1225(b)(2)(A) — detention only after a finding that the alien is not clearly entitled to admission — is constitutionally sufficient process under controlling Supreme Court precedent.
Why It Matters
This decision is one of a growing number of district court rulings addressing the current administration’s expanded use of § 1225’s mandatory detention authority against noncitizens who had previously been allowed to remain in the country under more permissive frameworks. The case illustrates the practical stakes of the § 1225 versus § 1226 classification: noncitizens detained under § 1225 have no statutory right to a bond hearing, meaning they may remain detained throughout removal proceedings with limited avenues for release.
The circuit split at the district level — with some Texas federal courts accepting due process challenges while others, including this court, reject them — signals that appellate resolution is likely necessary to establish a uniform standard. Until then, the outcome for detained noncitizens challenging § 1225 detention without bond will depend heavily on the district in which their case is heard.