Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sandra Gabino-Coba, a Mexican citizen who entered the United States unlawfully without being admitted or paroled, was taken into ICE custody in May 2026 and placed in removal proceedings. She petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging only her detention—not the removal proceedings or her eligibility for relief from removal—and sought release from custody.
Gabino-Coba argued that her detention violated procedural and substantive due process and that immigration officers failed to follow agency regulations when arresting and questioning her. The government sought a stay pending the Fifth Circuit’s en banc resolution of a related case or, alternatively, summary judgment on the ground that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) required her detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition and granted summary judgment to the government. Applying Fifth Circuit precedent, it held that Gabino-Coba was an “applicant for admission” because she was present in the United States without having been admitted. Because she did not contend that she was clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission, she was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court further held that neither procedural nor substantive due process entitled her to an individualized bond hearing, a custody determination based on dangerousness or flight risk, or immediate release.
The court also rejected Gabino-Coba’s claims under the Accardi doctrine. It concluded that 8 C.F.R. § 287.12 disclaims the creation of enforceable rights based on violations of Part 287 and that, even if officers violated agency regulations or unlawfully arrested her, those alleged violations would not justify release from detention independently authorized by § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court excused administrative exhaustion as futile and denied the government’s requested stay as moot because the Fifth Circuit had resolved the en banc proceeding on which the request was based.
Key Takeaways
- A person present in the United States without having been admitted is an applicant for admission, and Gabino-Coba was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) because she did not contend that she was clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission.
- Controlling Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Gabino-Coba’s procedural- and substantive-due-process demands for an individualized bond hearing or immediate release.
- Alleged violations of immigration arrest regulations did not create an enforceable right to release where the petitioner’s ongoing detention rested on independent statutory authority.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit precedent to long-resident noncitizens who entered without admission or parole, confirming that the passage of time inside the country does not by itself remove an applicant for admission from § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s detention framework.
It also limits the practical reach of regulation-based challenges to ICE arrest procedures: even an assumed defect in the initial arrest does not necessarily undermine later detention that is independently authorized by federal immigration law.