Angel v. Mullin (5th Cir., consolidated, 2026-07-02)
"The Due Process Clause protects all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." - Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693-94 (2001), as quoted in this opinion
Case Overview
The Fifth Circuit affirmed three district court habeas rulings, holding that unadmitted aliens who entered without inspection and have resided in the U.S. for years, with no removal order yet entered, are entitled to a bond hearing under the Due Process Clause after roughly 90 days of detention. The ruling responds to the court's own February 2026 Buenrostro-Mendez decision and a 2025 BIA reinterpretation that had stripped bond-hearing rights from long-term unauthorized residents under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1225(b)(2)(A).
The Facts
Three aliens, Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez (Mexico, entered 2004), Alejandro Villegas Angel (Mexico, entered 2011), and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado (Honduras, entered 2012), each entered the U.S. without inspection, resided here over a decade with no criminal history, and are parents of U.S. citizen children. Each was detained by ICE after an unrelated traffic stop (vehicle light, no license) between Nov. 2025 and Feb. 2026, and each sought habeas relief in the W.D. Texas, arguing their mandatory detention without bond under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1225(b)(2)(A), per the BIA's 2025 reinterpretation in Matter of Yajure Hurtado and the Fifth Circuit's own Feb. 2026 Buenrostro-Mendez decision, violated the Due Process Clause absent any hearing on dangerousness or flight risk.
The Application
The panel rejected the government's three arguments: (1) that statutory non-admission forecloses due process entirely, rejected because the Constitution does not turn on a statutory label; (2) that Section 1225(b)(2)(A)'s structure forecloses any procedural claim, rejected on the same reasoning; and (3) that even if the Constitution applies, no bond hearing is required, rejected under the Mathews v. Eldridge framework, following Zadvydas's recognition of a presumptively reasonable detention period and Demore's distinction between aliens awaiting a removal decision and aliens already ordered removed. The court found Washington v. Glucksberg inapposite (the aliens assert an already-recognized fundamental liberty interest, not a novel one) and found Demore consistent with relief here (it addressed criminal aliens, not a per se detention rule for all pre-removal-order aliens).
The Conclusion
**AFFIRMED.** The court held that unadmitted aliens detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) are entitled to invoke the Due Process Clause, that their claim sounds in procedural (not substantive) due process, and that the Constitution requires a bond hearing within a presumptively reasonable period, drawing on Zadvydas and Demore v. Kim to set that period at approximately 90 days. Judge Graves concurred in the judgment but would require a hearing sooner than 90 days.
No Supreme Court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support