Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Maria Virula-Salazar, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2012. Immigration authorities took her into custody on August 4, 2026, and served her with a Notice to Appear charging her as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because she was present without having been admitted or paroled.
Virula-Salazar filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that her continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and due process. She also invoked the Accardi doctrine, contending that the detention violated the agency’s own regulations. The respondents sought summary judgment, maintaining that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required her detention as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Virula-Salazar’s presence in the United States without admission made her an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Relying on Fifth Circuit authority, the court concluded that the statute did not entitle her to a bond hearing.
The court also rejected her substantive- and procedural-due-process challenges, explaining that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Her Accardi argument likewise failed because the governing statute mandates detention without a bond hearing. The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition, and stated that it would enter a final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present in the United States 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- or procedural-due-process right to a bond hearing under the circumstances presented.
- The court granted summary judgment to the respondents, denied habeas relief, and said that a separate final judgment would be entered for the respondents.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit precedent treating people who entered without inspection as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention. In the Southern District of Texas, the ruling reinforces that habeas challenges seeking bond hearings on statutory, due-process, or agency-compliance grounds face a substantial obstacle when § 1225(b)(2) governs the detention.