Reported / Citable
Background
Luis Serrano Cortez, a noncitizen detainee held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his detention. Cortez entered the United States without inspection in 2021 and has not obtained lawful status.
In his petition, Cortez argued that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and claimed that his detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, raising both procedural and substantive due process challenges. The government opposed the petition, arguing that Cortez’s claims were barred by statute and existing precedent.
The Court’s Holding
The District Court dismissed Cortez’s habeas petition without prejudice. The court held that because Cortez entered the United States without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, he qualifies as an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Recent Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (5th Cir. 2026) foreclosed Cortez’s argument that he was entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
On the due process claims, the court found them precluded by long-standing Supreme Court doctrine. The Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim failed because the relevant statutes (§§ 1225(b)(1) and 1225(b)(2)) mandate detention of applicants for admission. The substantive due process claim was barred by Demore v. Kim and Jennings v. Rodriguez, which establish that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of the deportation process. Cortez did not plead facts showing indefinite detention or other constitutional violation.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who enter without inspection and lack lawful status are classified as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention, not the more flexible standards of § 1226(a).
- Both procedural and substantive due process challenges to immigration detention during removal proceedings are foreclosed by established Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent.
- A habeas petitioner must plead specific facts demonstrating constitutional violations; general detention during removal proceedings alone does not suffice.
- The dismissal was without prejudice, preserving Cortez’s right to refile if circumstances change or new facts emerge.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the established legal framework governing detention of noncitizens at the border and during removal proceedings. By applying recent Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez, the court clarifies that immigration applicants—particularly those who entered unlawfully—have limited recourse to challenge detention through habeas review and cannot invoke the more favorable bond-hearing procedures available to those in the removal system under § 1226(a).
The ruling reflects the judiciary’s deference to Congress’s statutory mandate for detention and long-standing Supreme Court doctrine that immigration detention does not trigger the same constitutional constraints as criminal incarceration. This has significant practical implications for ICE detainees challenging custody, as procedural and substantive due process arguments face substantial legal barriers in the federal courts.