Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alejandro Rivas Hernandez, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States at a port of entry on October 22, 2021, and was released on his own recognizance five days later. On January 22, 2026, he was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody during a routine check and served with a Notice to Appear charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the country without being admitted or paroled.
On February 27, 2026, Hernandez filed applications for asylum and to adjust status. His motion for continuance in removal proceedings was granted on April 27, 2026. However, on May 18, 2026, his application to adjust status was denied. His asylum application remains pending, and he continues to be held in immigration custody without a bond hearing.
Hernandez filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his detention on multiple grounds: violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, due process, equal protection, the Suspension Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He also claimed his warrantless arrest violated the Accardi doctrine. The government moved for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied Hernandez’s habeas petition. The court held that because Hernandez entered the United States without being admitted or paroled, he is deemed an “applicant for admission” under immigration law and is therefore subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). This detention requires no bond hearing.
The court rejected Hernandez’s due process challenge, citing Supreme Court precedent establishing that detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible. The court found that noncitizens have only those rights regarding admission that Congress provides by statute, and because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention of applicants for admission, no procedural due process right to a bond hearing exists. The court also rejected his equal protection claim, finding he could not identify a similarly situated class treated more favorably—noting that entry without inspection is a criminal offense distinct from visa overstay, a civil infraction.
The court further held that an illegal arrest (if one occurred) has no bearing on the legality of detention following that arrest, foreclosing relief under the Accardi doctrine. Finally, the court denied Hernandez’s motion for entry of default judgment, holding that technical default alone does not entitle a party to default judgment as a matter of right.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who enter without inspection are automatically deemed “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) with no entitlement to a bond hearing.
- Mandatory detention during removal proceedings does not violate substantive or procedural due process under Supreme Court precedent.
- Equal protection claims fail when an alien cannot identify a similarly situated class of noncitizens treated more favorably under the same statutory definition.
- An allegedly illegal arrest does not invalidate detention that follows, precluding relief under the Accardi doctrine in this immigration context.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the government’s broad authority to detain noncitizens without a hearing during removal proceedings when they entered without inspection. The holding rejects arguments that such detention violates fundamental procedural protections, relying on the statutory framework that Congress enacted and Supreme Court precedent upholding detention as part of the removal process.
The decision has significant implications for immigration enforcement and removal proceedings. It establishes that the government need not conduct an individualized bond hearing or provide procedural safeguards beyond what Congress explicitly mandates by statute. This aligns with Fifth Circuit precedent in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and district court decisions applying the mandatory detention statute to applicants for admission.