Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan A. Parras Cumpean, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection on an unknown date. Police detained him in Victoria, Texas, on June 2, 2026, and transferred him to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.
The following day, immigration authorities served Parras Cumpean with a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because he was present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. While remaining in immigration custody, he petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated due process. Respondents sought summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required his detention as an applicant for admission.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and denied the habeas petition. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, the court concluded that Parras Cumpean’s presence without admission made him an applicant for admission and therefore subjected him to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
The court held that this detention did not violate substantive or procedural due process. It reasoned that detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process and that an applicant for admission has only the admission-related rights Congress has provided by statute. Because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention until specified proceedings conclude, Parras Cumpean was not constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen present in the United States without admission is treated as an applicant for admission for purposes of § 1225(b)(2).
- Section 1225(b)(2) mandates detention of covered applicants for admission while the specified immigration proceedings remain pending.
- The court rejected both substantive and procedural due-process grounds for requiring a bond hearing during that mandatory detention.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit precedent to foreclose a bond-hearing claim by a detained noncitizen who entered without inspection. In the Southern District of Texas, habeas petitioners similarly classified as applicants for admission face a substantial obstacle to obtaining bond hearings on constitutional due-process grounds while § 1225(b)(2) governs their detention.