Reported / Citable
Background
Immigration officials detained petitioner Sanchez Argueta on May 23, 2026, and placed her in removal proceedings by issuing a notice to appear. Her applications for relief from removal were denied, and an immigration judge ordered her removed. Her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending, so the removal order was not final.
The government detained Sanchez Argueta as an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). She sought habeas relief, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition and granted summary judgment for the government. It held that Sanchez Argueta was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b), and that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed a statutory claim to release or a bond hearing.
The court rejected both substantive and procedural due-process claims. Detention during ongoing removal proceedings is a constitutionally valid part of the removal process, the court concluded, and Zadvydas v. Davis did not apply because it concerns post-removal-order detention. As an applicant for admission who had not been admitted to the United States, petitioner was entitled only to the process Congress supplied; § 1225(b) does not require a bond hearing. The court also held that the APA supplied no review because habeas was an adequate remedy for a challenge to confinement.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant for admission may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b) during pending removal proceedings without a bond hearing.
- A vacated Fifth Circuit panel decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega had no precedential effect after en banc rehearing was granted.
- Zadvydas‘s limits on potentially indefinite post-removal detention do not directly govern detention while removal proceedings remain pending.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Fifth Circuit’s recent mandatory-detention precedent to deny habeas relief for a nonadmitted noncitizen whose removal case remains on appeal. It also treats the statutory detention scheme as supplying the full measure of procedural process available to an applicant for admission.