Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rosalba Maria Soto-Perdomo, a Venezuelan citizen, entered the United States without inspection in December 2021. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took her into custody during a routine check-in in October 2025 and charged her as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because she was present without having been admitted or paroled.
An immigration judge ordered Soto-Perdomo removed to Venezuela in January 2026. She appealed that decision and remained in immigration custody. Soto-Perdomo then sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that her continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required her detention as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Soto-Perdomo was an applicant for admission because she was present in the United States without having been admitted. Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, she therefore was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
The court further held that detention during removal proceedings did not violate substantive due process and that Soto-Perdomo had no procedural-due-process right to a bond hearing. Because applicants for admission possess only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute, and § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention while the specified proceedings remain pending, the court concluded that no bond hearing was constitutionally required. It granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission is treated as an applicant for admission and is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
- The court found no substantive-due-process violation because detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process.
- The court rejected a procedural-due-process right to a bond hearing for a detainee governed by § 1225(b)(2).
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority treating people who entered without inspection as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention. In the Southern District of Texas, detainees governed by § 1225(b)(2) face a substantial barrier to obtaining bond hearings through constitutional habeas claims while their removal proceedings remain pending.