Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aleksandr Tullii, a Russian citizen, applied for admission to the United States in 2025 without documents permitting lawful entry. Immigration authorities classified him as an arriving alien, charged him as inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and detained him while his removal proceedings remained pending.
An immigration judge granted Tullii’s asylum application, but the Department of Homeland Security appealed, leaving him without a final removal order. Tullii petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment and was worsening his physical and mental health. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government summary judgment and denied Tullii’s habeas petition. It held that Tullii was an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) while his removal proceedings continued. The court concluded that the statute and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed any statutory claim to a bond hearing.
The court also rejected Tullii’s substantive and procedural due-process claims. It reasoned that detention during ongoing removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that, as an applicant who had not been admitted, Tullii was entitled only to the process Congress provided, which does not include a bond hearing. The court further held that his health-related conditions-of-confinement allegations were not cognizable through habeas because they did not challenge the legal cause of his detention.
The court declined to rely on the Fifth Circuit panel decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, which had recognized a bond-hearing requirement after 90 days, because the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and vacated that opinion. The vacated panel ruling therefore had no precedential value.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant for admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b) throughout pending removal proceedings without a bond hearing.
- The court found no substantive or procedural due-process right to a bond hearing for an arriving alien who has not been admitted to the United States.
- Health and conditions-of-confinement claims that do not challenge the legal basis for custody are not cognizable in a habeas petition.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies recent Fifth Circuit authority treating § 1225(b) detention as mandatory for noncitizens present without prior admission. It also illustrates the practical effect of vacating a panel opinion for en banc rehearing: the vacated decision cannot supply binding support for release or a bond hearing.
For immigration practitioners, the decision underscores the distinction between challenges to the legality of detention, which may proceed in habeas, and challenges to confinement conditions, which generally require a different cause of action.