Reported / Citable
Background
Prem Bahadur Khatri, a Nepalese national detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Houston Contract Detention Facility, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Through counsel, he challenged his ongoing immigration detention.
The undisputed summary-judgment evidence showed that Khatri had not been admitted to the United States. The court therefore treated him as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied Khatri’s habeas petition. The court held that Fifth Circuit decisions in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed his statutory and due-process challenges to detention.
The court also rejected any Fourth Amendment challenge to Khatri’s arrest and detention. Because § 1225(b) supplied lawful authority for detention, those claims could not support habeas relief. The court dismissed the case and denied all remaining motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant for admission who has not been admitted to the United States is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
- Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed this detainee’s statutory and due-process claims seeking release through § 2241 habeas relief.
- Section 1225(b)’s detention authority defeated the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment theory in this habeas proceeding.
Why It Matters
The order applies recent Fifth Circuit authority to deny habeas relief from detention for a nonadmitted noncitizen treated as an applicant for admission. It underscores that, in the Southern District of Texas, challenges to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) face controlling circuit precedent on both statutory and due-process grounds.