Reported / Citable
Background
William Salgado Argueta, a noncitizen in custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. Argueta entered the United States without inspection and lacks lawful immigration status. He sought relief arguing he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and raised Fifth Amendment procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection claims.
The court considered whether to dismiss the petition on the pleadings, applying the standard that a habeas petition may be dismissed if it plainly appears the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
The Court’s Holding
The district court dismissed Argueta’s petition without prejudice. The court held that because Argueta entered the United States without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, he is classified as an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Under Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), applicants for admission are not entitled to bond hearings under § 1226(a).
The court rejected Argueta’s due process claims, finding that Supreme Court precedent in Demore v. Kim and Jennings v. Rodriguez establishes that detention of applicants for admission pending removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and mandated by statute. Argueta did not allege facts showing indefinite detention or present constitutional violations. The court also rejected his equal protection claim, noting that noncitizens who entered illegally without inspection are statutorily distinct from those who entered legally but overstayed, and Argueta failed to show disparate treatment among similarly situated groups.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who enter the United States without inspection are classified as applicants for admission, not deportable aliens, and are subject to mandatory detention under federal statute.
- Detention of applicants for admission during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and does not violate Fifth Amendment procedural or substantive due process protections.
- The statutory distinction between those entering illegally without inspection and those entering legally but overstaying is rational and does not violate equal protection.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Buenrostro-Mendez and clarifies that a significant class of detained immigration respondents—those entering without inspection—have limited recourse to habeas relief. The ruling establishes that such detainees cannot obtain bond hearings under § 1226(a) and demonstrates courts’ deference to statutory mandatory detention schemes for applicants for admission.
The decision may significantly impact practices in immigration detention litigation, particularly for respondents without lawful entry status, by foreclosing traditional habeas arguments based on due process and equal protection grounds when detention is governed by the applicable mandatory detention statutes.