Reported / Citable
Background
Anthony Roberto Irias Bonilla, a Honduran national, entered the United States without inspection in 2007 and has not obtained lawful immigration status. At the time of the petition, he had been held in ICE custody for less than one month. Through counsel, Irias Bonilla filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his civil immigration detention.
Irias Bonilla raised four distinct challenges to his confinement: (1) entitlement to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); (2) a procedural due process claim; (3) a substantive due process claim; and (4) an equal protection claim. Because he entered without inspection and had not been lawfully admitted, the government treated him as an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
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 plain from the petition and its exhibits that Irias Bonilla was not entitled to relief. The court held that, as a person who entered without inspection and had not obtained lawful status, he is an applicant for admission under § 1225(b)(2), and his detention is therefore mandatory by statute. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), the court rejected his claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) as foreclosed by circuit precedent.
The court likewise rejected the remaining constitutional claims. It held that the procedural due process claim failed because a bond hearing would be futile where detention is statutorily mandated regardless of dangerousness or flight risk. 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, and Irias Bonilla’s short period of confinement did not approach indefinite detention. Finally, the equal protection claim failed because he did not identify a similarly situated class treated more favorably — individuals who entered legally and overstayed are legally distinct from those who entered without inspection.
Key Takeaways
- Under the Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro-Mendez decision, noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection are applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2) and subject to mandatory detention, precluding any claim to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- Because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention, a procedural due process bond hearing is futile — the outcome of such a hearing could not affect the statutory detention requirement.
- A substantive due process challenge to immigration detention during removal proceedings requires more than a brief period of confinement; Demore v. Kim forecloses the claim at the outset of proceedings absent facts suggesting indefinite or unconstitutional duration.
- For equal protection purposes, noncitizens who entered without inspection are legally distinct from those who entered lawfully and overstayed, defeating any claim of disparate treatment absent additional factual allegations.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how quickly habeas challenges to ICE detention can be resolved on the pleadings in the Southern District of Texas following Buenrostro-Mendez. That Fifth Circuit ruling has significantly narrowed the class of detainees who can seek bond hearings under § 1226(a), and district courts within the circuit are now dismissing § 1225(b)(2) detention challenges at the threshold, without evidentiary development.
For immigration practitioners, the case underscores that detainees who entered without inspection face an uphill battle on all four common constitutional theories — statutory bond rights, procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection — unless they can plead facts demonstrating lawful admission or a constitutionally significant period of prolonged detention. The dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility of renewed litigation if circumstances change, such as an unreasonably extended detention.