Reported / Citable
Background
Cruz Leandro Martinez-Leiva, a Salvadoran national, entered the United States without inspection and without lawful status in 2015. He was subsequently taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Through counsel, Martinez-Leiva filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the legality of his continued detention and also seeking a temporary restraining order.
Petitioner argued that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. He also raised Fifth Amendment due process claims, contending that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing was constitutionally infirm. Respondents — including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and other federal officials — moved for summary judgment, which the court resolved on the parties’ full briefing.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen granted summary judgment for the government and dismissed the petition without prejudice. The court held that because Martinez-Leiva entered without inspection and never obtained lawful status, he is legally classified as an “applicant for admission” subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), not § 1226(a). Under the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), detention under § 1225(b)(2) is mandatory by statute, foreclosing any claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
The court also rejected Martinez-Leiva’s Fifth Amendment due process claims. Relying on Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), and Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), the court reaffirmed that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible component of the removal process, and that §§ 1225(b)(1) and 1225(b)(2) mandate detention of applicants for admission until the relevant proceedings conclude. Because Martinez-Leiva failed to carry his burden of showing a constitutional violation, the petition was denied and dismissed without prejudice, and his motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who enter the U.S. without inspection are classified as applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2), not § 1226(a), and their detention is mandatory — not discretionary — under the statute.
- The Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi forecloses bond-hearing claims brought under § 1226(a) by noncitizens in this category.
- Mandatory detention of applicants for admission during removal proceedings does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause under controlling Supreme Court precedent, including Demore v. Kim and Jennings v. Rodriguez.
- A petitioner challenging immigration detention bears the burden of demonstrating that the detention violates the Constitution; failure to meet that burden warrants summary judgment for the government.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how courts in the Southern District of Texas are applying the Fifth Circuit’s 2026 Buenrostro-Mendez ruling to shut down habeas challenges by individuals who entered without inspection. By classifying such individuals as applicants for admission rather than as persons subject to § 1226(a)’s discretionary detention framework, the court eliminates the statutory hook for bond hearings — a result that significantly limits judicial review of ICE detention decisions for this large population of noncitizens.
For immigration practitioners, the case underscores the importance of the entry-without-inspection classification and its downstream consequences for detention challenges. Attorneys representing similarly situated clients in the Fifth Circuit should be aware that both the statutory bond-hearing argument and the due process challenge face substantial headwinds under current circuit precedent, and should assess whether alternative avenues — such as challenging the conditions or duration of detention — remain viable.