Reported / Citable
Background
Anthony Alexander Arteaga-Marroquin, a Salvadoran national, entered the United States without inspection as an unaccompanied minor in 2015 and never obtained lawful immigration status. He was taken into ICE custody and, through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. He had been detained less than one month at the time of filing.
Petitioner argued that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, and raised claims under the Fifth Amendment’s procedural and substantive due process guarantees, as well as a Fourth Amendment challenge to the legality of his arrest and detention.
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. Because Petitioner 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 scheme of § 1226(a). Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), the court found that any claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) is foreclosed.
The court rejected the due process claims under binding Supreme Court precedent. The procedural due process claim failed because detention is statutorily mandated under § 1225(b), making a bond hearing futile. The substantive due process claim was precluded by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), and Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), which establish that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. Because Petitioner alleged detention of less than one month and pled no facts suggesting indefinite or unconstitutional confinement, no substantive due process violation was established. The Fourth Amendment claim likewise failed because § 1225(b) independently provides lawful authority for the detention.
Key Takeaways
- Individuals who entered the U.S. without inspection and never obtained lawful status are classified as applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2), which mandates detention — they are not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- The Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (Feb. 2026) decision is being applied by S.D. Texas district courts to quickly foreclose § 1226(a) bond-hearing claims brought by similarly situated detainees.
- Short detention periods (here, under one month) are insufficient to state a substantive due process claim absent additional facts suggesting indefinite or prolonged confinement.
- Fourth Amendment challenges to ICE arrest and detention cannot succeed in § 2241 habeas proceedings when § 1225(b) independently authorizes the detention.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how courts in the Southern District of Texas are applying the § 1225/§ 1226 detention-authority divide against noncitizens who entered without inspection, a category that encompasses a significant share of the current ICE detention population. The reliance on Buenrostro-Mendez — decided only months earlier — signals that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is already functioning as a near-automatic bar to bond-hearing claims in this posture.
For immigration practitioners, the case underscores the importance of pleading facts that distinguish a client’s situation from standard § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention — such as evidence of prolonged, indefinite confinement or changed circumstances that might support a constitutional challenge — as bare due process and Fourth Amendment arguments are unlikely to survive preliminary review in this circuit.