The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit narrowed one route to release for a defined group of immigration detainees Friday, ruling that three men in removal proceedings had no constitutional right to individual bond hearings.
The court’s 10-7 decision, filed Oct. 23, reversed and vacated lower-court orders that had required hearings. It applies to people the court classified as applicants for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than everyone held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Fifth Circuit hears appeals from federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
The statute’s definition and detention rule appear in separate clauses. Section 1225(a)(1) includes people in the United States who have not been admitted in the category of applicants for admission. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention during removal proceedings when an immigration officer finds an applicant is not clearly entitled to admission.
The three cases followed district-court orders for hearings to assess whether the men posed a danger or a flight risk. The men were released after the lower courts granted their petitions. They were Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, a Mexican national who had lived in the country without inspection or admission for more than 22 years; Alejandro Villegas Angel, a Mexican national who had lived there since 2011; and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado, a Honduran national who had lived there since 2012.
The opinion describes a change in how the government interpreted the detention rules. Before July 2025, authorities generally treated people apprehended inside the country as subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows release on bond or conditional parole. The Department of Homeland Security later argued that applicants for admission apprehended inside the country could instead fall under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently adopted that interpretation.
U.S. Circuit Judge Leslie H. Southwick dissented, warning that the decision could permit detention “however long, with no right to seek release.” The majority left open the possibility of a separate due-process challenge if detention ceased to serve an immigration purpose or removal was no longer practically attainable.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Oct. 1 to review Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, a separate case asking whether Section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detention of noncitizens in the country who have not been admitted. That case concerns the provision’s reach; the Fifth Circuit addressed the constitutional right to a hearing. The Supreme Court docket lists no argument date.
