Reported / Citable
Background
Harol Steven Zelaya-Rosales, a noncitizen detained 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. Zelaya-Rosales entered the United States without being admitted in November 2016 and has been placed in immigration removal proceedings. He did not allege or demonstrate that he obtained lawful immigration status.
Zelaya-Rosales raised three categories of claims: (1) arguments regarding bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); (2) Fifth Amendment due process challenges to his detention; and (3) claims based on the Accardi doctrine, alleging ICE violated its own regulations, specifically 8 C.F.R. § 287.8, in conducting his arrest.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the habeas petition on the pleadings, finding Zelaya-Rosales was not entitled to relief. First, the court held that bond-hearing arguments were foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), which established that noncitizens who entered without admission and lack lawful status are applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention provisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Second, the court rejected Zelaya-Rosales’s constitutional due process claims as precluded by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), and Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018). Under these precedents, detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of the removal process. The statutes governing applicants for admission mandate detention until certain proceedings conclude, and Zelaya-Rosales presented no evidence his current detention violated the Constitution.
Third, the court held that claims under the Accardi doctrine—which requires agencies to follow their own regulations—fail because 8 C.F.R. § 287.12 explicitly provides that the regulations in that section “do not, are not intended to, shall not be construed to, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law.” Therefore, § 287.8 does not provide an enforceable cause of action in federal habeas proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who entered the U.S. without admission and lack lawful status are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), with limited bond-hearing rights foreclosed by recent Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Detention during immigration removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible under longstanding Supreme Court doctrine and does not violate Fifth Amendment due process rights.
- ICE regulations do not create independent, enforceable rights in federal court; explicit disclaimers in regulations like 8 C.F.R. § 287.12 bar Accardi claims based on alleged regulatory violations.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces substantial barriers to federal habeas relief for immigration detainees, particularly those in custody as applicants for admission. By invoking recent Fifth Circuit precedent and established constitutional doctrine, the court demonstrates that immigration detention challenges face steep hurdles in district court, with most claims resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
The ruling also clarifies that ICE’s internal regulations, even if violated, do not provide an independent basis to challenge detention in federal court. This limits the practical remedies available to detainees who contest the procedures or circumstances of their arrest and confinement, leaving immigration proceedings themselves as the primary forum for relief.