The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rendered a judgment on February 6, 2026, declaring that undocumented immigrants who have been living in the United States for years and are arrested on U.S. soil are still considered “applicants for admission” and are not eligible for bail.
This ruling marks a key victory for the immigration enforcement policy of the Trump administration, strengthening the authority of mandatory detention for undocumented immigrants. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana, has jurisdiction over the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, overseeing appeals cases from 9 federal district courts in these states and handling federal legal matters.
The two cases involved are Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (Case No. 25-20496) and Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara (Case No. 25-40701). Both applicants are Mexican citizens who entered the U.S. illegally years ago and were arrested by ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) on U.S. soil, facing removal proceedings. They argued that they should be covered by 8 U.S.C. §1226(a), allowing them to request a bond hearing or release from an immigration judge. The federal government, however, contended that they fall under the category of “applicants for admission” under §1225(b)(2)(A), which mandates mandatory detention without bail until the conclusion of the removal process unless it is “clearly and without doubt” shown that they have the right to enter.
Initially, the district court (Southern District of Texas) ruled in favor of the applicants, issuing a writ of habeas corpus demanding a bail hearing or release, but the government appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court.
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for years and are arrested on U.S. soil are still considered “applicants for admission” under the definition of §1225(a)(1) because they have not entered the country legally. If immigration officers determine that a person does not fall under the category of “clearly and without doubt has the right to enter,” then they “shall be detained” awaiting the removal process.
The court rejected the applicants’ argument that the term “seeking admission” only applies to border applicants, not long-term residents on U.S. soil. The court deemed that “applicants for admission” and “seeking admission” are essentially synonymous. The Fifth Circuit Court based its decision on four aspects – textual language, context, the legislative history of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), and congressional intent – indicating that regardless of how long an individual has resided in the U.S. without legal entry, if they are apprehended by ICE, they still fall under “applicants for admission” and must be detained without bail.
This ruling aligns with the 2025 Matter of Yajure Hurtado decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), overturning prior practice and determining that undocumented entrants, regardless of the length of their stay in the U.S., are subject to mandatory detention under §1225(b)(2)(A), thereby overturning the district court orders and not requiring bail hearings for the individuals.
This represents a significant legal victory for the Trump administration’s tough immigration stance, expanding the scope of mandatory detention and reducing the chances of release for undocumented immigrants in the removal process.
However, New York State is not bound by this ruling because it falls under the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (covering New York, Connecticut, Vermont), meaning the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision does not have mandatory authority over the Second Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. Many immigration detention centers in New York are under the jurisdiction of the Southern or Eastern District Federal Courts. Only when the Supreme Court of the United States accepts similar cases and issues a nationwide unified ruling will it be binding on all Circuit Courts, including the Second Circuit.
New York attorney Li Guofeng stated that New York is not bound by the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and can still apply for bail under §1226(a), but the situation is dire as ICE may swiftly transfer detainees to Southern states under the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction such as Texas, Louisiana, and Arizona.
“The transfer could happen very quickly: they could be flown out on the same day or within a few days, or the person may stay but the case is transferred to the Southern states. Once transferred, the detention facility or jurisdiction shifts to the Fifth Circuit’s area, and the chance of bail is almost non-existent.”
Li Guofeng advised that before reporting to ICE, individuals should ensure they have reliable friends/family who understand: if a person does not return on the day of reporting, they should immediately seek the assistance of a lawyer and apply for a writ of habeas corpus at the Southern District Federal Court in New York. The Southern District Court is efficient, and an application in the afternoon may result in an order the same night, prohibiting DHS from transferring or delaying deportation, preserving the jurisdiction of New York.
In terms of ICE arresting undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for some time without a criminal record, the writ of habeas corpus is one of the most effective and fastest legal remedies available. Li Guofeng cited the example of a Chinese immigrant named Shuo Wang who arrived in the U.S. in August 2023, had no criminal record, and was arrested by ICE during a check-in in December 2025. ICE intended to treat him as an “Arriving Alien”. On December 22, Li Guofeng submitted an application for an “emergency writ of habeas corpus” in the Eastern District Federal Court in New York. The federal court judge ultimately ruled that ICE’s actions violated due process and ordered the immediate release of the individual. He was released on December 25. From the submission of the application to the release, only two to three days had passed.
Li Guofeng emphasized the need for immediate action from external parties as most individuals are unable to make calls after being detained (especially at the Federal Building on 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan), and they must rely on external parties (friends/family) to act promptly, hire a lawyer, apply for a writ of habeas corpus, and secure the jurisdiction of New York before a transfer occurs.
“If the case is transferred to a Southern state, losing the advantage in New York, the chances of bail are almost non-existent. Once transferred, the hope of bail is extremely low.” Li Guofeng stated, “Do not be too trusting of promises of ‘probably getting released’, as within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit, prolonged detention is almost inevitable.”
“If detained for over 6 months, individuals can claim their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and request release. However, six months is a long time, and most people might not endure it and could be compelled to voluntarily depart.”