Reported / Citable
Background
Oscar Lopez Acosta is a noncitizen detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Acosta entered the United States without inspection around 2002 or 2003 and has since been placed in removal proceedings. Through counsel, Acosta filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the legality of his continued detention and seeking release on bond.
Respondents—ICE officials and others—filed a motion for summary judgment. Acosta failed to respond within the required timeframe. The case presents whether an alien who entered without inspection and remains in removal proceedings has any right to challenge mandatory detention or seek a bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Acosta’s petition. Because Acosta entered the United States without inspection and has not been lawfully admitted, he is classified as an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Under that statute, his detention is mandatory and not subject to the bond hearing procedures of § 1226(a).
The court rejected Acosta’s Fifth Amendment due process claims as foreclosed by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), which holds that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. The court also cited Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), for the principle that §§ 1225(b)(1) and 1225(b)(2) mandate detention of applicants for admission until proceedings conclude. Acosta’s arguments were additionally precluded by Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026).
Key Takeaways
- Aliens who enter without inspection remain classified as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), even during removal proceedings.
- Habeas corpus petitions challenging such detention are barred by Supreme Court precedent holding detention during removal is constitutionally permissible.
- Fifth Amendment due process protections do not create a bond hearing right for aliens detained as applicants for admission.
- Recent Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses arguments that § 1226(a) bond procedures apply to applicants for admission.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the government’s broad statutory authority to detain noncitizens without bond during removal proceedings, particularly those who entered without inspection. For immigration practitioners, it demonstrates that habeas corpus challenges to ICE detention based on due process deprivation face steep doctrinal obstacles given controlling precedent that detention itself is constitutionally permissible.
The ruling reflects judicial alignment with restrictive detention rights for applicants for admission in the post-Jennings era. Practitioners challenging immigration detention must carefully distinguish cases by immigration status, as different classifications carry different rights to bond hearings and judicial review.