Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Araceli Juarez Perez, a Mexican citizen who entered the United States in 1999, was detained by immigration officials in January 2026 after police stopped her for an allegedly faulty brake light. Perez alleged that she had lived in the country for 27 years, had no criminal record, maintained steady employment, supported four children, and was pursuing asylum and withholding of removal.
Perez petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing in part that her detention violated procedural due process. The federal respondents sought dismissal or summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required her detention and that her habeas claims lacked merit. They did not dispute her material factual allegations.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that applying § 1225(b)(2) to detain Perez without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized assessment violated procedural due process. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Perez had a protected liberty interest and that all three factors favored her. The government identified neither procedures through which she could challenge the reason for her detention nor a flight risk, danger, or other weighty interest justifying it.
The court denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion and granted Perez’s habeas petition in part. It ordered her release within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those preceding her detention, barred her removal or transfer under the existing detention, and prohibited re-detention during her removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that she poses a flight risk or danger to the community. The court declined to order a bond hearing under § 1226(a) because the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi governed the detention statute and the respondents did not contend that § 1226(a) applied.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied to Perez without any individualized process, violated procedural due process.
- The absence of any available procedure to contest the basis for detention supported immediate release as the appropriate habeas remedy.
- Any re-detention during Perez’s removal proceedings requires a prior immigration-judge hearing at which the government proves flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between statutory authority for mandatory immigration detention and the constitutional process required when that authority is applied. Even after accepting the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that certain longtime residents fall within § 1225(b)(2), the court held that detention without notice, a hearing, or an individualized justification can violate the Due Process Clause.
The remedy also goes beyond directing release: it restricts future re-detention unless the government first satisfies a heightened evidentiary burden before an immigration judge.