Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Luis Antunez-Salazar, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without inspection in April 2019. Immigration authorities took him into custody in August 2026 and served him with a Notice to Appear charging him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled.
Antunez-Salazar remained in immigration custody and filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. He argued that detaining him without a bond hearing violated due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that he was an applicant for admission subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that Antunez-Salazar’s presence in the United States without admission made him an applicant for admission and therefore subjected him to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The court relied on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
The court further concluded, based on the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Miguel Vergara, that this mandatory detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied Antunez-Salazar’s habeas petition and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court stated that it would enter a final judgment in favor of the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- The court held that § 1225(b)(2) required Antunez-Salazar’s detention without a bond hearing.
- Applying controlling Fifth Circuit authority, the court rejected both the substantive and procedural due-process challenges and stated that final judgment would be entered for the respondents.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit precedent to foreclose due-process challenges to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) by a person who entered without inspection. In the Southern District of Texas, habeas petitioners in the same posture face binding appellate authority that permits detention without a bond hearing.