Reported / Citable
Background
Luis Alberto Acosta-Espinosa, a noncitizen detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. Acosta-Espinosa entered the United States without inspection in 1998 and has never obtained lawful status.
Acosta-Espinosa raised two constitutional challenges to his detention: a Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim seeking a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and a substantive due process claim challenging the constitutionality of his detention. At the time of filing, he had been detained for less than one month.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice on the pleadings. The court held that because Acosta-Espinosa entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, he is an “applicant for admission” subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Under Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (Feb. 6, 2026), applicants for admission are not entitled to bond hearings under § 1226(a).
The court ruled that Acosta-Espinosa’s Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim fails because the statute mandates detention of applicants for admission. Citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), the court explained that §§ 1225(b)(1) and 1225(b)(2) require detention until removal proceedings conclude. Similarly, the substantive due process claim is precluded by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), which holds that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. The court noted that Acosta-Espinosa had been detained less than one month and had not pled facts showing indefinite or unconstitutional detention.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who entered without inspection and lack lawful status are “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
- Applicants for admission have no right to bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and cannot challenge mandatory detention through procedural due process claims.
- Short-term detention during removal proceedings does not violate substantive due process as detention is a constitutionally permissible component of the deportation process.
- District courts may dismiss habeas petitions on the pleadings when the petition plainly shows the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces significant procedural barriers for immigration detainees challenging their custody. By classifying noncitizens without lawful status as “applicants for admission” rather than persons in removal proceedings, the court applies a statutory regime permitting mandatory detention without bond hearings. This framework, recently reaffirmed by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez, substantially limits habeas corpus remedies available to ICE detainees at the initial stages of immigration proceedings.
The ruling underscores the distinction in immigration law between applicants for admission (those without lawful entry) and others in removal proceedings, with the former category receiving fewer procedural protections. For immigration practitioners, this decision demonstrates the challenges in mounting constitutional challenges to short-term detention and the enforceability of statutory mandatory detention provisions despite due process arguments.