Reported / Citable
Background
Pablo Luis Martinez Ferrer, a pro se petitioner held at a detention facility in Conroe, Texas, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 21, 2026. He acknowledged having entered the United States illegally but argued that his ongoing detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) was unlawful, contending it violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. His removal order was not yet final, and he had a pending administrative appeal.
The court had previously flagged the Fifth Circuit’s controlling decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) subjects any individual present in the United States without lawful admission to mandatory detention as an applicant for admission deemed to be seeking admission. The court gave Petitioner an opportunity to identify any individual circumstances or additional arguments distinguishing his case from that precedent.
Petitioner responded, arguing that he had been continuously detained without a bond hearing since January 2026, had received no meaningful review of his custody, had complied with all immigration requirements, had no criminal history, posed no danger to the community, had a pending appeal of his removal order, and suffered from asthma requiring regular medical attention.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Charles Eskridge denied the petition and dismissed the action with prejudice. On the statutory claim, the court held that Petitioner’s disagreement with Buenrostro-Mendez provided no basis for relief, as a district court is bound by Fifth Circuit precedent unless overturned en banc or by the Supreme Court. The undersigned had independently reached the same statutory conclusion in prior decisions, and nothing in Petitioner’s response warranted a different outcome.
On the due process claims, the court rejected both procedural and substantive due process arguments, relying on its own prior rulings holding that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not require an individualized custody determination beyond the statute’s mandate and that pre-removal-order detention under that provision does not violate substantive due process even when it extends beyond the six-month period recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), for post-final-order detention. Because Petitioner’s removal order was not yet final, the Zadvydas clock had not begun to run.
The court further held that Petitioner’s asthma claim was not cognizable in a habeas action. Conditions-of-confinement claims must be raised in a civil rights action, not under § 2241, and the court lacked jurisdiction to consider them here. A certificate of appealability was denied as unnecessary in the immigration habeas context.
Key Takeaways
- Under Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, individuals present in the United States without lawful admission are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) as applicants for admission, regardless of their individual circumstances such as lack of criminal history or compliance with immigration requirements.
- Neither procedural nor substantive due process requires an individualized bond hearing for pre-removal-order detainees held under § 1225(b)(2)(A), and the six-month presumptive limit from Zadvydas applies only to post-final-order detention.
- Conditions-of-confinement claims, including those based on medical needs, cannot be raised in a § 2241 habeas petition and must instead be pursued through a civil rights action; a court lacks jurisdiction over such claims when improperly brought in habeas.
Why It Matters
This decision is one of a growing line of rulings from the Southern District of Texas applying the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi to foreclose habeas challenges to mandatory immigration detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). For practitioners, it confirms that district courts in the Fifth Circuit have no discretion to grant bond hearings or other individualized relief to pre-removal-order detainees who entered without lawful admission, no matter how long the detention or how compelling the personal circumstances.
The decision also draws a clear jurisdictional line between habeas and civil rights claims for detained immigrants. Attorneys representing immigration detainees with medical complaints or other confinement-related grievances must route those claims through a Bivens or § 1983 civil rights action rather than a § 2241 petition, or risk dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.