Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marlon Josue Moreira-Chavez, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without inspection in March 2010. Immigration authorities took him into custody in September 2026 and served him with a Notice to Appear charging him as inadmissible under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Moreira-Chavez petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the INA and due process. The respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that he was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court held that Moreira-Chavez’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 further held that detention without a bond hearing did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It relied on the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Rodriguez v. Vergara and directed that final judgment be entered for the respondents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent.
- Section 1225(b)(2) requires detention of an applicant for admission during removal proceedings.
- Under Fifth Circuit precedent, that mandatory detention without a bond hearing does not violate substantive or procedural due process.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosing statutory and constitutional challenges to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) by noncitizens who entered without inspection. In the Southern District of Texas, similarly situated habeas petitioners cannot obtain a bond hearing merely by arguing that detention under this provision violates due process.