Moises Alvarez Olvera, a Mexican citizen who has resided in the United States since 1999 without authorization, filed the habeas petition in February challenging his detention under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Olvera acknowledged his illegal entry but argued his continued detention violated constitutional protections.
U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge rejected Olvera's arguments, citing the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, which interpreted federal immigration law to subject anyone present without legal admission to mandatory detention. "It isn't necessary for Petitioner to concede he's an 'applicant for admission,' where the undisputed record establishes that he is present in the United States without having been admitted," Eskridge wrote, noting this "means that detention is lawful under 8 USC ยง1225(b)(2)(A)."
The judge had previously given Olvera an opportunity to present individual circumstances or additional arguments after initially flagging the Fifth Circuit precedent. Olvera's response relied heavily on a California district court decision in Bautista v. Santacruz, but Eskridge noted the Ninth Circuit had stayed that ruling and found the government likely to succeed on appeal regarding jurisdictional issues.
The ruling adds to a growing body of federal court decisions interpreting the scope of mandatory immigration detention following recent circuit court precedents. The dismissal with prejudice prevents Olvera from refiling similar claims, though he could potentially appeal to the Fifth Circuit.