Vargas-Sanchez v. Noem 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
Adelmo de Jesus Vargas-Sanchez,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-00003-PHX-MTL (JFM)
ORDER
I.
Petitioner, a Venezuelan citizen, has been present in the United States since October
11, 2022. (Doc. 1 at 2.) He was placed in removal proceedings, in which he filed and
continues to pursue applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). (Id., Exs. 5-6.) On October 31, 2025, he was
detained by Department of Homeland Security agents following the termination of his
Temporary Protected Status. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner filed this habeas corpus action
challenging his immigration detention and seeking a bond determination hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Doc. 1.) Respondents argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. 7 at 2.)
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
Case 2:26-cv-00003-MTL--JFM Document 9 Filed 03/03/26 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
detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). See also Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, — F.4th —, 2026
WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026).
Based on this record, the Court finds that Petitioner is present without having been
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.
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 INA. (Doc. 1, Ex. 5.) He was later issued a Notice to Appear charging him
as an alien present in the United States without possession of a valid entry document or
suitable travel document, in violation of Sections 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of
the INA. (Id.) Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection,
and he is still pursuing those claims. (Id., Ex. 6.)
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, and Counts One and
Two of the Petition are denied.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Case 2:26-cv-00003-MTL--JFM Document 9 Filed 03/03/26 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, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment
accordingly.
Dated this 3rd day of March, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00003-MTL--JFM Document 9 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3