Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aneel Faster, a Pakistani citizen, entered the United States on a B-2 tourist visa on March 16, 2025, with authorization to remain until September 15, 2025. Immigration authorities detained him on February 21, 2026, and charged him with removability under Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
An immigration judge denied Faster bond after finding him to be a flight risk and later ordered him removed to Pakistan. Faster appealed the removal decision and remained in immigration custody. He petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the bond determination, his detention without a bond hearing, and the conditions of his confinement. The respondent moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The district court dismissed without prejudice Faster’s challenge to the immigration judge’s bond determination. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s discretionary bond decision.
The court denied Faster’s remaining claims. Applying Fifth Circuit precedent, it concluded that Faster was deemed an applicant for admission and therefore was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court held that this detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process and that Faster was not constitutionally entitled to another bond hearing. It also held that his confinement-conditions claim was not cognizable in a Section 2241 habeas proceeding.
Key Takeaways
- A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review an immigration judge’s discretionary bond determination.
- Under the authority applied by the court, Faster was deemed an applicant for admission and was subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2) while the relevant immigration proceedings remained pending.
- A challenge to conditions of immigration confinement is not cognizable through a Section 2241 habeas petition in this court.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes among three types of immigration-detention claims: review of a discretionary bond ruling, a constitutional challenge to detention without another bond hearing, and a challenge to confinement conditions. The court found no jurisdiction over the first, rejected the second on the merits, and held that the third fell outside habeas jurisdiction.
The ruling also shows the practical effect of classifying a detainee as an applicant for admission under the governing authority: Section 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory-detention framework may foreclose a procedural due-process claim for a bond hearing while covered proceedings continue.