Reported / Citable
Background
Hilton John Escobar Pudis, a Nicaraguan citizen, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention at El Valle Detention Facility. He alleged that he had been detained since January 10, 2026, while removal proceedings were pending.
DHS detained Escobar Pudis under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). He contended that he was improperly subject to mandatory detention and entitled to an individualized bond hearing because he had been physically present in the United States since 2023.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Ignacio Torteya, III recommended denying the petition and closing the case. The recommendation concluded that Fifth Circuit precedent, Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, foreclosed Escobar Pudis’s statutory challenge because a noncitizen present without admission is deemed an applicant for admission and may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The magistrate judge also recommended rejecting the Fifth Amendment claim. Relying on Demore v. Kim, the recommendation concluded that mandatory detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that Escobar Pudis’s detention without a bond hearing did not violate due process.
Key Takeaways
- The document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district-court ruling.
- Under Buenrostro-Mendez, physical presence without admission does not remove a noncitizen from § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention framework.
- The recommendation found no due-process right to an individualized bond hearing in these circumstances.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the Fifth Circuit’s recent interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) to a noncitizen who asserted lengthy physical presence but did not claim prior admission or parole. It also treats Demore as supporting mandatory detention pending removal proceedings even outside the criminal-detention provision directly at issue in that case.
The parties had 14 days to object; absent timely objections, unobjected-to findings and conclusions may generally be reviewed on appeal only for plain error.