Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Orvin Rodolfo Fajardo-Aguilar's habeas petition challenging his immigration detention and seeking a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court held that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applied because Petitioner was treated as an applicant for admission and had not been determined clearly and beyond a doubt to be entitled to admission. The court also rejected Petitioner's due process and Bautista class-membership arguments and dismissed the action.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner was subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention and a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- Whether mandatory detention under the applicable immigration statutes and procedures violated petitioner's due process rights.
- Whether petitioner was entitled to relief based on his alleged membership in the Bautista class.
Holdings
- A person who entered the United States illegally, is present without having been admitted, and has not been determined clearly and beyond a doubt to be entitled to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Petitioner's due process challenge failed because the procedures provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act and the applicable congressional determination procedures constituted the process to which he was entitled.
- Petitioner was not entitled to relief in this action based on his asserted membership in the Bautista class; any relief under the Bautista judgment had to be sought in the Central District of California.
Key quotations
“For the reasons explained in Chavez v. Noem, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2026 WL 381618, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 9, 2026), the Court finds that a person who entered the United States illegally and is clearly and beyond a doubt not entitled to admission, is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).” (at 1)
“These procedures represent the due process as provided by Congress in statute. Petitioner is entitled to nothing further under the Constitution.” (at 2)
Factual background
Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras, had been present in the United States since 2006 and was arrested in December 2025. He challenged his immigration detention and sought a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while the government maintained that he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court found that he was present without having been admitted and that no immigration officer had determined that he was clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to admission.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District of Arizona after being arrested in December 2025 and detained in connection with removal proceedings. The court denied the petition, dismissed the action, denied pending motions as moot, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.