Reported / Citable
Background
Ramesh Khatri, a citizen of Nepal, entered the United States without inspection in 2023 and was quickly apprehended by immigration officials and served a Notice to Appear. He was then released on parole and lived in the United States for nearly three years with no criminal history. On November 1, 2025, ICE detained him without warning while he was traveling to work. An immigration judge subsequently ordered him removed, but Khatri appealed that order to the Board of Immigration Appeals, leaving the removal order non-final while he remained in custody.
His detention arose from a major federal policy shift announced in July 2025, when DHS and DOJ issued interim guidance interpreting INA § 235 (8 U.S.C. § 1225) to require mandatory detention of all noncitizens who had not been formally admitted — including those who entered without inspection and had long since been released into the country. The BIA adopted that position in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit upheld the statutory reach of that interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), but expressly left open whether mandatory detention under that reading could survive a constitutional due process challenge.
Khatri filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting, among other claims, that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The government moved for summary judgment, contending that Buenrostro required his detention and that no due process violation occurred.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and granted the habeas petition in part, ordering Khatri’s release by June 11, 2026. The court held that Buenrostro resolved only the statutory question and did not foreclose as-applied due process challenges to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Applying the balancing framework from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) — consistent with its prior ruling in Lopez Moncebais v. Bondi, No. 5:26-CV-268 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2026) — the court found that Khatri’s prolonged civil detention without any individualized determination of dangerousness or flight risk violated procedural due process.
The court identified two reinforcing liberty interests: Khatri’s three years of residence in the United States since 2023, and his prior release on parole, which created a reasonable expectation of freedom from detention during removal proceedings. The court credited Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005), for the principle that liberty interests can arise from government-created expectations, finding that Khatri’s sudden re-detention without explanation after years at liberty amplified the constitutional deprivation.
Rather than order a bond hearing, the court exercised its equitable habeas discretion to mandate immediate release. It reasoned that a post-hoc bond hearing would not cure the already-suffered deprivation of liberty, that the Fifth Circuit has held § 1226(a) bond hearings are unavailable to applicants for admission, and that the BIA’s own position forecloses immigration judges from holding such hearings for individuals detained under § 1225(b)(2). The court directed that Khatri be released in a public place during daytime hours and that the government return all identification documents taken from him.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez that § 1225(b)(2) applies to all applicants for admission — including those who entered without inspection — does not extinguish as-applied Fifth Amendment due process challenges to indefinite mandatory detention without a bond hearing.
- A noncitizen’s multi-year residence in the United States and prior government-sanctioned release together create a cognizable liberty interest sufficient to trigger Mathews v. Eldridge balancing, even where the person entered without inspection.
- Where a bond hearing is structurally unavailable — because the BIA and Fifth Circuit have closed that avenue — the appropriate habeas remedy for a due process violation is immediate release, not a referral to an immigration judge.
- If Khatri is re-detained, the court’s order expressly requires that he be afforded procedural due process protections at that time.
Why It Matters
This decision is one of a growing number of federal district court rulings in the Southern District of Texas and nationwide that carve out constitutional breathing room within the government’s expansive post-2025 mandatory detention policy. While Buenrostro-Mendez closed the statutory door to bond hearings for a broad class of noncitizens, courts applying Mathews v. Eldridge are finding that the Constitution independently constrains the government’s power to hold civil detainees indefinitely without individualized review — particularly when those detainees have lived openly in the United States for years following a government-authorized release.
For practitioners, the case underscores that the unavailability of a § 1226(a) bond hearing under Fifth Circuit precedent strengthens — rather than weakens — the argument for outright release as the habeas remedy, since ordering a hearing the immigration courts lack jurisdiction to conduct provides no meaningful relief. Attorneys representing detained noncitizens in the Fifth Circuit should consider emphasizing prior release, length of residence, and the structural absence of any bond-hearing mechanism when seeking habeas relief on due process grounds.