Selvin Hernandez-Oseguera v. Minter, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied Selvin Hernandez-Oseguera’s petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenged his detention without an individualized bond hearing. The court held that his statutory claims were barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies and, alternatively, that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires his mandatory detention as an applicant for admission. The court also rejected his due process challenge and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. The petitioner's statutory claims challenging application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225 were barred by the prudential exhaustion doctrine because he had not presented them to the Board of Immigration Appeals and the BIA could provide the requested relief.
2. A noncitizen present in the United States who has never been lawfully admitted is an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) and is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), even if the noncitizen entered the interior years earlier rather than being apprehended at or near the border.
3. Mandatory detention of the petitioner under § 1225(b)(2) without an individualized bond hearing did not violate the Due Process Clause because the petitioner had never been lawfully admitted and Congress had not provided a statutory right to such a hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petitioner's statutory challenge to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 was barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
2. Whether a noncitizen who entered the United States without admission or inspection remains an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a).
3. Whether mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) without an individualized bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause.

Disposition

dismissed