Reported / Citable
Background
Jared de Jesus Cervantes-Lopez, a Mexican citizen, has been held at El Valle Detention Facility since April 2, 2026, while removal proceedings are pending. He alleged that he entered the United States without admission or inspection in 2008, when he was a minor.
In a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Cervantes-Lopez challenged his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) without an individualized bond hearing. He argued both that the statute did not apply to him because of his lengthy physical presence in the United States and that continued mandatory detention violated the Fifth Amendment.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Ignacio Torteya, III recommended denying the habeas petition and closing the case. The recommendation concluded that Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed Cervantes-Lopez’s statutory argument: because he entered without admission or inspection, he was properly treated as an applicant for admission and subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) while his removal proceedings continued.
The magistrate judge also recommended rejecting the due-process claim. Applying the reasoning of Demore v. Kim, the recommendation concluded that mandatory detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), without a bond hearing, did not violate Cervantes-Lopez’s Fifth Amendment rights.
Key Takeaways
- The opinion recommends denying, rather than finally adjudicating, the § 2241 petition.
- Under Buenrostro-Mendez, a noncitizen present without admission may be classified as an applicant for admission under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- The recommendation found no constitutional right to an individualized bond hearing during Cervantes-Lopez’s ongoing removal proceedings.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to reject a statutory challenge to mandatory immigration detention based on long-term physical presence without admission. It also treats Demore‘s approval of detention during removal proceedings as extending to detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The parties had fourteen days to object to the proposed findings and recommendations, so the district judge had not yet issued a final disposition reflected in this document.