Mayketia Llanes Carnesolta, who acknowledged illegal entry into the United States, filed the petition arguing her detention under 8 USC §1225(b) was unlawful and that any detention should proceed under 8 USC §1226(a), which may entitle her to a bond hearing. She raised claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Due Process Clause, equal protection, the Suspension Clause, and the Accardi doctrine.
Judge Eskridge relied heavily on the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, which held that anyone present in the U.S. without legal admission is both an "applicant for admission" and deemed to be "seeking admission," making them subject to mandatory detention. "The Government may constitutionally detain deportable aliens during the limited period necessary for their removal proceedings," Eskridge wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.
The judge had previously given Carnesolta an opportunity to file an amended petition after initially finding her arguments were resolved by prior decisions. The government was ordered to respond only to her equal protection and Accardi doctrine claims, which hadn't been addressed in earlier rulings.
The ruling adds to a growing body of Southern District of Texas decisions rejecting similar habeas challenges under the current immigration enforcement framework. Judge Eskridge cited numerous recent cases from his own court dismissing comparable arguments, suggesting immigration attorneys may face an uphill battle challenging detention policies in the district.