The Fifth Circuit ruled that people who entered the country without presenting at a port of entry can be detained without bond while their removal cases move forward, reversing lower courts in a 2-1 decision.
The Feb. 6 opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upended earlier orders that had required bond hearings or release for certain noncitizens. A three-judge panel voted 2-1 to reverse the lower court rulings, signaling a stricter interpretation of detention authority tied to applicants who never sought formal admission at a port of entry.
Victor Buenrostro-Mendez brought suit against several federal officials, and the court consolidated his case with Jose Padron Covarrubias’s separate lawsuit. Victor Buenrostro-Mendez had sued US Attorney General Pam Bondi, Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Todd Lyons, Acting ICE Houston Field Office Director Matthew Baker, ICE John Linscott, ICE Director of Houston Contract Detention Facility, and Houston Warden Contract Detention Facility of CoreCivic Martin Frink.
Both petitioners entered the United States unlawfully, and the government argued that they fit the statute’s language for applicants who may be detained until removed. Circuit Court Judges Stuart Kyle Duncan and Edith H. Jones formed the majority, while Judge Dana Douglas issued the lone dissent, underscoring how sharply judges can disagree on immigration detention rules.
The majority opinion pushed back against an interpretive tack the petitioners used. “Undeterred, the petitioners argue that ‘applicant for admission’ is a term of art, so it cannot be understood according to its ordinary meaning,” the majority wrote. “But the remaining provisions of § 1225 confirm that applicants for admission are indeed necessarily seeking admission.”
The court linked statutory text and context to conclude that people who never presented themselves at a port of entry may be treated under the detention provision at issue. “Each of them entered illegally many years ago. As such, the government contends, because neither petitioner showed himself to be “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” he ‘shall be detained’ pending his removal proceeding.”
The two judges criticized the district courts for drawing inferences that would require bond hearings or release. “In particular, they seem to infer that when the Supreme Court specified that § 1226 applies to aliens inside the United States, it implied that § 1225 does not apply to such aliens. But this is the exact sort of language-parsing inquiry that the Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts against.”
The Fifth Circuit’s opinion runs 43 pages and ends with a clear command to the lower courts. “We REVERSE the district courts’ orders to provide petitioners with bond hearings or release them and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” That reversal restores broader detention authority pending removal for this class of entrants, at least within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction.
Kristi Noem welcomed the decision, which aligns with a law-and-order approach that emphasizes enforcement at the border and strict adherence to statutory text. The ruling narrows the routes that unsuccessful challenges can use to secure bond hearings when an individual is treated as an applicant who never presented at a lawful port of entry.
