Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Guillermo Fernandez-Herrera, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without inspection on July 14, 2019. On November 22, 2025, he was arrested for driving while intoxicated by Harris County Constable. After his arrest, Fernandez-Herrera was transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on April 14, 2026, while detained at Harris County jail.
On that same day, ICE served Fernandez-Herrera with a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. He has remained in immigration custody pending removal proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that Fernandez-Herrera, as an alien present in the United States without inspection, is properly classified as an “applicant for admission” under immigration law. As such, he is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The court rejected his due process challenge, holding that mandatory detention of applicants for admission does not violate either substantive or procedural due process. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that detention during removal proceedings is “a constitutionally permissible part of that process.” Critically, the court concluded that because Fernandez-Herrera’s statutory rights regarding admission are limited to those Congress has expressly provided, and because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention of applicants for admission, he is not entitled to a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
The court granted the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Fernandez-Herrera’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Key Takeaways
- Aliens present without inspection are classified as “applicants for admission” and subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), with no statutory right to a bond hearing.
- Mandatory detention of applicants for admission during removal proceedings does not violate substantive or procedural due process under current Supreme Court doctrine.
- Statutory rights in immigration law are limited to those Congress has expressly granted; courts cannot extend rights beyond the statutory text.
- The government’s classification of a detainee’s immigration status determines detention authority and the applicability of procedural protections.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the longstanding principle that immigration detention operates under distinct constitutional constraints compared to criminal detention. For individuals apprehended without inspection, the absence of a statutory bond hearing right has significant practical consequences: they may be detained for the entire duration of removal proceedings without the opportunity to demonstrate they pose no flight risk or danger. The court’s reliance on Congressional intent—that § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention—illustrates how statutory language controls the scope of due process protections in immigration law.
The decision also reflects Fifth Circuit and district court consensus that detention during removal proceedings is categorically different from criminal pretrial detention. For immigration practitioners and detained immigrants, this ruling confirms that challenging mandatory detention as a violation of due process faces a high bar in federal court, absent circumstances that might trigger heightened protection under as-applied challenges—though the court dismissed Fernandez-Herrera’s as-applied claim for lack of supporting authority.