Reported / Citable
Background
Carlos Enrique Vasquez-Lopez, a Guatemalan citizen, alleged that he entered the United States without inspection around 1996. ICE arrested him in New Jersey in June 2026, placed him in removal proceedings, and transferred him to the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Texas.
Vasquez-Lopez filed a verified petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). He contended that he was wrongly treated as an applicant for admission and that his continued detention violated Fifth Amendment due process.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Ignacio Torteya, III recommended denying the petition and closing the case. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the magistrate judge concluded that a noncitizen present in the United States without having been admitted is deemed an applicant for admission. Because Vasquez-Lopez did not allege that he had been admitted or paroled, his detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) was proper.
The magistrate judge also concluded that detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings did not violate due process. Drawing on Demore v. Kim, the report reasoned that mandatory detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible to prevent flight. Vasquez-Lopez had been detained for about 27 days when the report issued.
Key Takeaways
- Under Fifth Circuit precedent, presence in the United States without admission makes a noncitizen an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Section 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention during removal proceedings, subject to narrow statutory exceptions.
- The report recommends finding that approximately 27 days of detention without a bond hearing did not violate due process.
Why It Matters
The report applies Buenrostro-Mendez to reject a long-present but never-admitted noncitizen’s claim to bond eligibility under § 1226(a). It also treats Demore as supporting mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), even though Demore addressed a different detention provision.
This is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district-court disposition. The parties had 14 days to object.