Chirinos v. Cantu et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Edgar Jesus Medina Chirinos,
Petitioner,
v.
John E Cantu, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-00756-PHX-MTL (ASB)
ORDER
I.
Petitioner entered the United States from an unknown country without authorization
in 2014. (Doc. 1 ¶ 67.) Respondents arrested Petitioner in October 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 68-72.)
Petitioner filed this habeas corpus action challenging his immigration detention and
seeking a bond determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents argue that
Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
(Doc. 7 at 2-3.)
II.
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). See also Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th
Cir. 2026).
Based on this record, the Court finds that Petitioner is present without having been
Case 2:26-cv-00756-MTL--ASB Document 9 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
admitted and is therefore treated as an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1).
The Court further finds that an immigration officer has not determined Petitioner clearly
and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, and therefore mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies. Petitioner’s statutory and regulatory claims must be
denied.
As far as Petitioner alleges that his detention violates his due process rights, he is
mistaken. The government began removal proceedings against Petitioner under procedures
set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). An alien unlawfully present in
the United States “has only those rights regarding admission that Congress has provided
by statute.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020); see also
Espinoza Lopez v. Noem, 26 Civ. 00345 (JHR), 2026 WL 266597, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2,
2026).
In this case, Petitioner received due process in two respects. First, he was afforded
the procedural protection of the INA. Second, he was subject to the determination
procedures established by Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration
Responsibility Act where an immigration officer determined that he was not entitled to a
bond hearing. These procedures represent the due process as provided by Congress in
statute. Petitioner is entitled to nothing further under the Constitution.
Finally, the Court also rejects Petitioner’s argument that relief should be granted
here because he is a member of the Bautista class. See Calderon Lopez v. Lyons, –– F.
Supp. 3d ––, 2025 WL 3683918, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2025). On March 6, 2026, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed the Bautista declaratory judgment,
pending a ruling on the Government’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. See
Bautista v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). If Petitioner
believes he is entitled to further relief under the judgment in Bautista, he must seek relief
in the Central District of California.
. . . .
. . . .
Case 2:26-cv-00756-MTL--ASB Document 9 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1) is DENIED. This action is dismissed, all pending motions are denied as moot,
and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00756-MTL--ASB Document 9 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3