Reported / Citable
Background
Adrian Sanchez Flores, a Mexican national, entered the United States without inspection in 2000 and has lived in the country continuously for approximately 26 years. On May 19, 2026, ICE arrested and detained him without affording him a bond hearing. He was held at the T. Don Hutto Detention Center in Taylor, Texas.
The government justified its refusal to provide a bond hearing by relying on a July 2025 policy shift. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons issued an internal memorandum declaring that all noncitizens who entered without admission or parole are “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), which carries the right to a bond hearing. The Board of Immigration Appeals codified this position in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Earlier in 2026, the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi rejected statutory challenges to this interpretation but expressly left open any constitutional due process claims.
Sanchez Flores filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention as a violation of both the INA and his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The court dismissed his statutory claim as foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez but reached the constitutional question.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted the petition on procedural due process grounds and ordered ICE to release Sanchez Flores no later than June 17, 2026, under conditions no more restrictive than those in place before his arrest. The court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause entitled him to an individualized bond hearing — an assessment of whether he poses a flight risk or danger to the community — before being detained, and that the government’s blanket application of mandatory detention without any such hearing violated his constitutional rights.
The court rejected the government’s argument that Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam‘s “entry fiction” stripped Sanchez Flores of due process rights regarding his detention. The court drew two critical distinctions: first, Sanchez Flores challenges his detention, not the admission process, and Thuraissigiam addressed only due process rights in the context of removal proceedings; second, unlike the petitioner in Thuraissigiam who was apprehended 25 yards from the border and never released, Sanchez Flores has resided in the United States for 26 years and has established substantial connections to the country — a distinction the Supreme Court itself has recognized as constitutionally material under Zadvydas v. Davis.
Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found all three factors favor requiring a bond hearing: the private interest in freedom from physical restraint is substantial; the risk of erroneous deprivation is high when there is no individualized inquiry into flight risk or dangerousness; and the government’s administrative burden of conducting bond hearings is modest. The court expressly departed from its own prior rulings in Canales-Melgar v. Noem and Goguev v. Noem, in which it had applied the entry fiction to detainees with substantial interior presence, citing a growing district court consensus and further review of the applicable law.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro-Mendez ruling foreclosing statutory challenges to the government’s mandatory-detention interpretation of § 1225(b) does not bar constitutional due process challenges — the government conceded the constitutional question during oral argument, and the Fifth Circuit did not reach it.
- Noncitizens who entered without inspection but have established substantial presence in the United States — through years of continuous residence and community ties — are entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protections regarding their detention, even if the “entry fiction” limits their process rights in removal proceedings.
- The government’s July 2025 policy reclassifying all entrants without inspection as § 1225(b) “applicants for admission” ineligible for bond hearings does not override the constitutional requirement of an individualized assessment of flight risk and dangerousness before civil detention.
- If Sanchez Flores is re-detained, all applicable procedures — including a bond hearing — must be followed.
Why It Matters
This decision is part of a substantial and growing body of district court rulings in the Fifth Circuit holding that the Biden-era-reversed, Trump-administration policy of reclassifying long-term interior residents as § 1225(b) mandatory detainees without bond hearings violates procedural due process. The opinion provides a detailed roadmap for how courts should distinguish Thuraissigiam — confining it to challenges to admission and removal proceedings for those apprehended near the border — from detention claims brought by individuals with deep roots in the United States.
For practitioners, the ruling underscores that Buenrostro-Mendez is not a complete defense to immigration detention challenges: the Fifth Circuit’s statutory holding leaves the constitutional door open, and district courts across the circuit have walked through it. Attorneys representing clients detained under the new § 1225(b) policy should plead procedural due process claims under Mathews v. Eldridge and focus the factual record on the client’s length of residence, community ties, and the circumstances of entry and any prior government releases.