Reported / Citable
Background
Mariuska Morasen Napoles, a noncitizen detainee in ICE custody, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her continued detention. The petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2021 and is currently in removal proceedings. ICE respondents moved for summary judgment, which went unopposed after the petitioner failed to timely respond.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition. Judge Andrew S. Hanen held that because the petitioner entered without inspection and has not been lawfully admitted, she is an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), whose detention is statutorily mandated. Her arguments regarding bond hearings under § 1226(a) were foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026).
On constitutional grounds, the court held that Fifth Amendment due process claims are precluded by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003), which establishes that “[d]etention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process.” The court also cited Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018), explaining that §§ 1225(b)(1) and 1225(b)(2) mandate detention of applicants for admission until proceedings conclude.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who enter without inspection are classified as applicants for admission and may be detained under mandatory statutory provisions.
- Detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of the process and does not violate the Fifth Amendment.
- Arguments regarding bond hearings are foreclosed for applicants for admission under current Fifth Circuit precedent.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces established precedent limiting habeas corpus relief for immigration detainees and affirms that statutory detention requirements for applicants for admission withstand constitutional challenge. It applies binding Fifth Circuit authority and Supreme Court precedent to uphold ICE detention authority in removal cases.