Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eddy Cruz Mateo, a Cuban national and citizen, entered the United States in February 2021 and was released on his own recognizance the following month. He later applied for adjustment of status, obtained work authorization, married, and developed ties through work and church. He had no criminal record.
Immigration officials detained Cruz Mateo in September 2025, and he remained in ICE custody for more than 10 months. After an immigration judge denied bond for lack of jurisdiction, Cruz Mateo petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The federal respondents sought dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required his detention and that his habeas claims lacked merit.
The Court’s Holding
The court declined to base its decision on the detention statute’s text and instead held that applying § 1225(b)(2) to Cruz Mateo without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized assessment violated procedural due process. Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that Cruz Mateo had a protected liberty interest and that all three factors favored him.
The court emphasized his four-plus years in the country, prior release, lack of criminal history, community ties, and detention exceeding 10 months. The government neither asserted that he posed a flight risk or danger nor identified any available procedure for an individualized detention determination. The court denied the government’s summary-judgment motion, granted the habeas petition in part, and ordered Cruz Mateo released within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those previously imposed.
The court also barred his transfer or removal under the existing detention and prohibited re-detention during his removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, after a hearing, that the government proved flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. Because the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi treated § 1225(b)(2) detention as mandatory and the government did not contend that § 1226(a) applied, the court ordered release rather than a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) may violate procedural due process as applied when prolonged custody continues without notice, a hearing, or an individualized justification.
- The court found immediate release—not merely a future bond hearing—appropriate because the government identified no process for Cruz Mateo to await.
- ICE may not re-detain Cruz Mateo during his removal proceedings without a pre-detention hearing at which the government proves flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
The ruling applies procedural-due-process limits even where binding circuit precedent characterizes the governing immigration statute as requiring detention. It underscores that statutory authorization does not necessarily resolve whether prolonged detention is constitutional as applied to a particular person.
The remedy is also significant: the court ordered release within 48 hours, restored the prior level of release conditions, and imposed procedural safeguards against re-detention rather than directing the government simply to conduct a bond hearing.