Reported / Citable
Background
Agustin Cecilio Sayu-Casas, a Cuban national, entered the United States without inspection in 2022, was briefly apprehended by immigration officials, and then released. He spent over three years out of custody with no criminal history and no missed immigration appointments. On November 5, 2025, he was re-detained by ICE at a routine check-in appointment. A bond hearing was scheduled but never held — the Immigration Judge declined to conduct it, citing a lack of jurisdiction. On January 22, 2026, an Immigration Judge ordered Sayu-Casas removed, but he filed a timely appeal, leaving the removal order non-final.
His detention arose against the backdrop of a significant policy shift. In July 2025, DHS and DOJ issued interim guidance reinterpreting Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1225) to require mandatory detention of all noncitizens who had not been formally admitted — including those who entered without inspection years earlier. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this position in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit upheld that statutory interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), confirming that § 1225(b)(2) applies to all applicants for admission regardless of when they are detained. However, the Fifth Circuit did not address whether mandatory detention under that provision could nonetheless violate the Due Process Clause as applied to long-term residents.
Sayu-Casas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention without any individualized bond determination violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Respondents moved for summary judgment, contending that Buenrostro compelled mandatory detention and that no due process violation had occurred.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted the habeas petition in part and denied the government’s motion for summary judgment. Applying the framework from the court’s earlier decision in Lopez Moncebais v. Bondi, No. 5:26-CV-268 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2026), the court held that Buenrostro resolved the statutory question but left open as-applied due process challenges. A noncitizen detained under § 1225(b)(2) may still invoke the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of procedural due process, requiring an individualized determination before civil detention is imposed.
The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and found that Sayu-Casas’s liberty interest was substantial. His four-year residence in the United States since 2022 created a cognizable liberty interest, and his prior release from custody — followed by more than three years of uninterrupted freedom with no violations — gave rise to a legitimate expectation that he would not be detained without some individualized process. The court cited Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005), for the proposition that liberty interests can arise from expectations created by government policies, including prior releases from detention.
As the remedy, the court ordered immediate release rather than a bond hearing. It reasoned that (1) the Fifth Circuit has foreclosed § 1226(a) bond hearings for applicants for admission under Buenrostro; (2) a post-deprivation hearing cannot cure an already-completed constitutional violation of liberty; and (3) based on the BIA’s position in Yajure Hurtado, an Immigration Judge would likely refuse to conduct a bond hearing even if ordered. Respondents were directed to release Sayu-Casas by June 3, 2026 at 5:00 p.m., return his identity documents and personal effects, and notify his counsel of release time and location at least two hours in advance.
Key Takeaways
- Buenrostro-Mendez settled the statutory question — § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention applies to all unadmitted noncitizens — but does not foreclose as-applied procedural due process challenges under the Fifth Amendment.
- Long-term U.S. residence combined with a prior government release creates a liberty interest sufficient to trigger Mathews v. Eldridge balancing, even for noncitizens subject to mandatory detention.
- Where an Immigration Judge lacks jurisdiction to hold a bond hearing under BIA precedent, a district court may order outright release as the appropriate habeas remedy rather than remanding for a bond determination.
- The court’s order expressly preserves due process rights on re-detention: if Sayu-Casas is taken back into custody, he must be afforded individualized procedural protections under the Fifth Amendment.
Why It Matters
This decision is part of a growing wave of district court rulings — particularly in the Southern District of Texas — that carve out a due process lane even after the Fifth Circuit’s broad endorsement of mandatory detention in Buenrostro-Mendez. By holding that statutory authority to detain does not automatically satisfy constitutional requirements, the court signals that noncitizens with substantial ties to the United States and prior government-sanctioned releases may have actionable due process claims regardless of their formal admission status.
For practitioners, the ruling underscores the importance of pleading as-applied Fifth Amendment claims alongside statutory arguments in § 2241 petitions. It also highlights the practical bind created by the BIA’s jurisdictional position in Yajure Hurtado: when the administrative system itself refuses to hold bond hearings, federal habeas courts may view release — not remand — as the only meaningful remedy for a proven due process violation.