Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Baptista Bula Nasesel Zeferindu, an Angolan citizen, entered the United States without admission or parole on May 31, 2023. That same day, he was served with a Notice to Appear charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). On October 3, 2025, Zeferindu was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. On January 6, 2026, an immigration judge ordered his removal to Angola, and he appealed that decision while remaining in immigration custody.
Zeferindu filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that he was entitled to a bond hearing because he posed no risk to the community and suffered from certain health conditions. He also contended that his prolonged detention violated his constitutional rights. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that Zeferindu’s detention was lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because he was an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Zeferindu’s habeas petition. The court held that because Zeferindu entered the United States without admission or parole, he must be deemed an “applicant for admission” and is therefore subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Under this statute, such applicants are not entitled to bond hearings.
Rejecting Zeferindu’s due process arguments, the court cited Supreme Court precedent holding that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. The court further explained that Congress has granted limited statutory rights to aliens regarding admission, and because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention of applicants for admission until specified proceedings conclude, Zeferindu has no procedural due process right to a bond hearing.
Key Takeaways
- Aliens who enter without admission or parole are classified as applicants for admission and subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) precludes access to bond hearings even when the detainee poses minimal community risk or has medical needs.
- Detention during removal proceedings does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause under existing Supreme Court precedent.
- Statutory rights for applicants for admission are limited to those Congress has explicitly provided by law.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the mandatory detention scheme for undocumented immigrants who enter without authorization. For immigration practitioners, it clarifies that § 1225(b)(2) detention is not discretionary—clients classified as applicants for admission have no statutory or constitutional entitlement to a bond hearing regardless of individual hardship or community ties. This ruling narrows available legal challenges to detention in removal proceedings and affects litigation strategy for practitioners representing detainees.
The decision also signals consistency with Fifth Circuit jurisprudence on immigration detention and reflects the judiciary’s deference to Congressional determinations regarding the rights available to aliens in removal proceedings. Immigration attorneys must account for this limited legal recourse when advising detained clients.