Reported / Citable
Background
Mardo Vinicio Alvarado Flores, a noncitizen detained by ICE, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. Through counsel, he alleged that he was entitled to a bond hearing and that his detention without one violated his Fifth Amendment rights to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection.
Alvarado Flores had entered the United States without inspection in 2010 and had not obtained lawful status in the intervening years. He alleged he had been detained for less than two months at the time of filing. The respondents were ICE officials, led by Martin Frink.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen dismissed the petition without prejudice on the pleadings under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, finding it plainly appeared that Alvarado Flores was not entitled to relief. Because he entered without inspection and never obtained lawful status, the court held he is an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), not the discretionary detention regime of § 1226(a) that provides for bond hearings. The court relied on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), which directly forecloses the bond-hearing argument for such individuals.
The court rejected all three constitutional claims. The procedural due process claim failed because the statute mandates detention, citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018). The substantive due process claim was precluded by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), which established that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible; the petitioner’s short period of detention did not approach the kind of indefinite confinement that might raise constitutional concerns. The equal protection claim failed because Alvarado Flores did not identify a similarly situated class treated more favorably — the court distinguished noncitizens who entered illegally from those who entered lawfully and overstayed, finding these groups are not similarly situated for equal protection purposes.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who entered the U.S. without inspection and never obtained lawful status are classified as “applicants for admission” under § 1225(b)(2) and are subject to mandatory detention — they have no statutory right to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- The Fifth Circuit’s 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi is being applied by district courts to summarily dismiss § 2241 habeas petitions seeking bond hearings from this category of detainee.
- Short-term detention pending removal proceedings does not, without more, state a viable substantive or procedural due process claim under Demore v. Kim and Jennings v. Rodriguez.
- An equal protection claim in this context requires identifying a similarly situated class that receives more favorable treatment — a bare comparison to lawfully admitted noncitizens or U.S. citizens is insufficient.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Buenrostro-Mendez is reshaping habeas litigation in the Fifth Circuit for immigration detainees. By classifying unauthorized entrants as applicants for admission subject to § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory detention scheme rather than § 1226(a)’s discretionary framework, courts are shutting the door on bond hearing claims at the pleadings stage — before the government is even required to respond.
For practitioners representing ICE detainees in the Southern District of Texas, this ruling underscores the narrowed landscape post-Buenrostro-Mendez: habeas petitions asserting bond rights for clients who entered without inspection face summary dismissal unless the petitioner can plead facts distinguishing their situation from that framework or showing constitutionally problematic detention length.