Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose De Jesus Perez, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection or admission in 2001. He was ordered removed in absentia in 2019, but his immigration proceedings were later reopened. After he was again denied relief and ordered removed in March 2024, he appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. That appeal remained pending, so his removal order was not yet final.
Perez had been in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody since November 17, 2025, and was detained at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas. He petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his detention during removal proceedings had become excessive and unreasonable under the Fifth Amendment. The government sought a stay or, alternatively, summary judgment on the ground that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) required Perez’s detention.
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that Perez was subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, a person present in the United States who has not been admitted is an applicant for admission deemed to be seeking admission and therefore falls within the statute’s mandatory-detention provision.
The court further held that Perez’s detention without an individualized bond hearing did not violate procedural or substantive due process. Fifth Circuit precedent established that Congress’s prescribed procedures are constitutionally sufficient for this category of noncitizens and that detention pending a definite endpoint—removal or release—does not, without more, offend due process. Because Perez’s BIA appeal remained pending, the post-removal-order detention provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) did not apply. The court denied the habeas petition, granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, and denied its motion to stay as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who entered without inspection or admission may be mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) while removal proceedings remain pending.
- Under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, such detention does not require an individualized bond hearing merely because the government has not established dangerousness or flight risk.
- The statutory framework for post-removal-order detention did not apply because Perez’s pending BIA appeal meant that his removal order was not yet final.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit precedent to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). In the Southern District of Texas, noncitizens who have never been admitted face a substantial barrier to obtaining bond hearings through habeas petitions while their removal proceedings remain pending.
The court noted, however, that a different due-process question could arise if detention were prolonged merely as punishment or continued after removal became only a remote possibility. Perez had not established either circumstance.