Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alain Tamayo Nunez, a Cuban national, entered the United States in September 2022 and was released on his own recognizance. According to the uncontested record, he complied with all requirements, had no criminal history, and had an application for relief from removal pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Immigration officials detained Tamayo Nunez when he appeared for a scheduled check-in in September 2025. After an immigration judge denied him an individualized custody determination, he petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The federal respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required his detention and that his claims lacked merit.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that applying mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) to Tamayo Nunez without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized assessment violated procedural due process. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court emphasized his nearly four years in the country, prior release, lack of criminal history, pending removal-relief proceedings, and the government’s failure to identify a flight risk, danger, or other weighty interest justifying detention.
The court denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, granted the habeas petition in part, and ordered Tamayo Nunez released within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those imposed before his detention. It declined to order a bond hearing under § 1226(a), instead concluding that immediate release was the appropriate habeas remedy because the respondents identified no available process to await.
The court also barred his transfer or removal under the existing detention and prohibited re-detention during the removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first holds a hearing at which the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that he presents a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied here without any individualized process, violated procedural due process.
- All three Mathews factors favored the petitioner because of his substantial liberty interest, the absence of procedural safeguards, and the government’s failure to identify a sufficiently weighty detention interest.
- The court ordered release rather than a bond hearing and required a pre-detention hearing before any later re-detention during the removal proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that statutory mandatory-detention authority does not necessarily resolve an as-applied procedural due-process challenge. Even after recognizing controlling Fifth Circuit authority concerning § 1225(b)(2), the court separately examined whether this petitioner’s detention without individualized procedures was constitutional.
The remedy is also significant: the court ordered prompt release and imposed procedural safeguards against re-detention, rather than directing the government merely to provide a post-order bond hearing.