Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Julian Modesto Mendez, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2008. Immigration authorities served him with a Notice to Appear charging inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and took him into custody on September 15, 2026.
Mendez petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that Mendez was an applicant for admission subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Mendez’s presence in the United States without admission made him an applicant for admission and therefore subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). It relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
The court further concluded, based on the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Rodriguez v. Vergara, that this mandatory detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, denied the habeas petition, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Detention under § 1225(b)(2) is mandatory and does not require a bond hearing.
- Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, that mandatory detention does not violate substantive or procedural due process.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies recent Fifth Circuit precedent to foreclose statutory and constitutional challenges to detention without a bond hearing under § 1225(b)(2). Within the Fifth Circuit, habeas petitioners classified as applicants for admission face controlling authority permitting mandatory detention without individualized bond proceedings.