Vera 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
Rafael Salguero Vera,
Petitioner,
v.
John E Cantu, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-00051-PHX-MTL (ASB)
ORDER
Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under § 2241. The Court denies
the Petition and this action.
I.
Petitioner is a Mexican citizen illegally present in the United States since April
2004. Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear charging him as “an alien present in
the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.” (Doc. 1 at 5; Doc. 1-1 at 3.) He
seeks a bond hearing or release from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security,
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, because he is being held without a
bond hearing. (Doc. 1 at 18.) Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to a bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226. He argues that the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225 do
not apply to him because, although he has lived in the United States illegally for nearly
twenty-two years, he is not currently seeking admission as defined in the statute. (Id. at
12, 14.)
Respondents oppose the Petition, arguing that Petitioner is an “applicant for
Case 2:26-cv-00051-MTL--ASB Document 13 Filed 03/04/26 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
admission as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) because he has never been lawfully admitted
to the United States,” and therefore subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. 10 at 2.)
II.
When it enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility
Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Congress sought to close an illogical loophole that permitted
illegal aliens “who have entered the United States without inspection gain[ing] equities and
privileges in immigration proceedings that are not available to aliens who present
themselves for inspection.” Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498-99 (5th Cir.
2026) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 104-469, pt. 1, at 225 (1996)). Thus, under § 1225(a)(1), in
certain immigration removal proceedings, Congress chose to “deem” any “alien present in
the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States” as an
“applicant for admission.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1).
Petitioner argues that because he has resided illegally in the United States for nearly
twenty-two years and is not “seeking admission” that he cannot possibly fall within the
structure of § 1225. (Doc. 1 at 12, 14.) But he is mistaken. By making a legislative policy
choice, Congress decided that he, undisputably an “alien present in the United States who
has not been admitted,” must be considered an “applicant for admission” for the purposes
of §§ 1225 and 1226. Petitioner’s contrary position evokes the inequities of the pre-IIRIRA
era, where an illegal alien who evaded detection at the international border and then within
the United States, and who did actually present himself for admission, gets more procedural
rights than someone who seeks admission by lawful means.
This Court is aware that other judges in this District and elsewhere have determined
that petitioners under similar circumstances are entitled to bond hearings under § 1226. But
this particular Court disagrees with that conclusion. As this Court expressed in Chavez v.
Noem, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2026 WL 381618 (D. Ariz. Feb. 9, 2026), the better approach is
to follow the plain meaning of § 1225 along with Congress’s stated objectives in enacting
the IIRIRA. The Court found the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi
Case 2:26-cv-00051-MTL--ASB Document 13 Filed 03/04/26 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
instructive and followed it. Id. at *2. For these reasons, the Petition for Habeas Corpus
will be denied as to Petitioner’s request for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
III.
Petitioner’s other arguments lack merit. As far as Petitioner argues that his detention
violates his liberty interests, an illegal alien is only entitled to the process provided by
Congress. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020) (an alien
unlawfully present in the United States “has only those rights regarding admission that
Congress has provided by statute”). 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). If
Petitioner believes he is entitled to further relief under the judgment in Bautista, he must
seek relief in the Central District of California.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1) is DENIED. This action is dismissed, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment
accordingly.
Dated this 3rd day of March, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00051-MTL--ASB Document 13 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 3