Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lizbeth Sarahi Venegas Cervantes, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in February 2024. Immigration authorities took her into custody in February 2026 and charged her as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because she was present without having been admitted or paroled.
An immigration judge ordered Venegas Cervantes removed to Mexico in May 2026. She appealed that ruling and remained detained while the appeal was pending. In a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, she argued that continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents sought summary judgment, contending that she was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that Venegas Cervantes’s presence in the United States without admission made her an applicant for admission and therefore subjected her to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that the statute governed her custody while the relevant immigration proceedings remained unresolved.
The court further held that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It reasoned that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible and that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(2) requires detention and does not provide the requested bond hearing, the court granted the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, denied the habeas petition, and directed entry of final judgment for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present without admission is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Section 1225(b)(2) required Venegas Cervantes’s detention while the applicable immigration proceedings remained pending.
- The court found no substantive or procedural due-process right to a bond hearing under these circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority to reject a constitutional challenge to detention under § 1225(b)(2), reinforcing that applicants for admission may remain in mandatory custody without an individualized bond hearing during ongoing removal proceedings.
The ruling addressed only the legality of Venegas Cervantes’s detention. It did not decide her removal appeal or her asserted eligibility for U nonimmigrant status or relief under the Violence Against Women Act, matters over which her petition acknowledged that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has exclusive jurisdiction.