Reported / Citable
Background
Victor Genaro Bautista-Medina, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States in 2014 as an unaccompanied minor and was detained at the El Valle Detention Facility beginning April 21, 2026. The Department of Homeland Security placed him in removal proceedings and detained him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which mandates detention of certain applicants for admission while their removal proceedings remain pending.
Bautista-Medina petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that he should instead be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, and that detaining him without an individualized assessment of flight risk and dangerousness violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Ignacio Torteya, III recommended denying the petition and closing the case. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the magistrate judge concluded that Bautista-Medina was properly classified as an applicant for admission under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Because Bautista-Medina did not claim that he had been admitted to the United States, his extended physical presence did not make § 1226(a) applicable.
The magistrate judge also concluded that continued detention without a bond hearing did not violate due process. Relying on Demore v. Kim, the report reasoned that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and serves the government’s interest in preventing noncitizens from absconding. Although Demore concerned detention under § 1226(c), the magistrate judge found its reasoning applicable to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present in the United States who has not been admitted may be treated as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Long-term physical presence in the United States does not, by itself, create eligibility for bond under § 1226(a).
- The magistrate judge concluded that detention pending removal proceedings without an individualized bond hearing did not violate the Fifth Amendment.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 Buenrostro-Mendez decision to reject a statutory challenge to § 1225(b)(2)(A) detention while separately addressing the petitioner’s constitutional claim. It indicates that, within the circuit, noncitizens who were never admitted may face mandatory detention even after years of physical presence in the country.
The ruling is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final merits judgment in the text provided. The parties had fourteen days after service to object before the district court could accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings and recommendation.