Arevich Gonzalez v. Thompson — Court upheld mandatory immigration detention and denied habeas relief

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Ernesto Arevich Gonzalez, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States through the Ysleta Port of Entry in May 2024. Immigration officials determined that he lacked lawful status but released him under a humanitarian-parole program for Cuban citizens, which was later terminated.

Immigration authorities took Gonzalez into custody on May 30, 2026, and charged him as inadmissible. An immigration judge ordered him removed on September 23, 2026, although he retained the ability to appeal. Gonzalez filed a habeas petition alleging that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and due process. The government sought summary judgment, and Gonzalez filed a cross-motion.

The Court’s Holding

The court held that Gonzalez was an applicant for admission because he was present in the United States without having been admitted. Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, that status subjected him to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), notwithstanding his earlier release on humanitarian parole.

The court further held that mandatory detention without a bond hearing did not violate Gonzalez’s substantive or procedural due-process rights, relying on the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Rodriguez v. Vergara. It granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied Gonzalez’s habeas petition and cross-motion for summary judgment, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.

Key Takeaways

• A noncitizen present without admission may be treated as an applicant for admission and subjected to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
• Prior release on humanitarian parole did not establish that Gonzalez had been lawfully admitted to the United States.
• Binding Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Gonzalez’s statutory and due-process challenges to detention without a bond hearing.

Why It Matters

The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit precedent holding that applicants for admission detained under § 1225(b)(2) are not entitled to bond hearings on the statutory or constitutional theories Gonzalez advanced. It also underscores the distinction between parole into the country and formal admission for immigration purposes.

The court cautioned that Gonzalez could not relitigate the same claims through another § 2241 petition and that any challenge to the ruling must instead proceed by appeal to the Fifth Circuit.