Reported / Citable
Background
Juan Carlos Granados Nunez entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor approximately eight years before this case. After his arrest on a driving-while-intoxicated charge, ICE detained him on May 11, 2026, and transferred him to the T. Don Hutto Detention Center in Taylor, Texas.
The government maintained that Granados Nunez was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and that immigration judges lacked authority to grant him bond. He petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that continued detention without an opportunity to seek release violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition, holding that Granados Nunez’s detention without any opportunity to challenge it through a bond hearing violated procedural due process. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that his substantial liberty interest after eight years in the United States, the risk of erroneous deprivation from automatic detention, and the limited governmental burden of providing a hearing all favored him.
The court rejected the government’s exhaustion argument as futile because the government simultaneously asserted that detention was mandatory and that an immigration judge could not consider bond. It also concluded that precedent addressing the admission rights of recently arrived noncitizens did not foreclose Granados Nunez’s distinct challenge to detention after years of living in the country.
As the remedy, the court ordered his immediate release under conditions no more restrictive than those existing before his detention. It also barred the government from detaining him again without first holding a bond hearing at which the government must prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who lived in the United States for eight years had a cognizable liberty interest in freedom from immigration detention.
- Requiring administrative exhaustion was futile where the government asserted that no immigration judge had authority to provide the requested bond review.
- The court ordered immediate release rather than merely directing a later bond hearing and required clear and convincing evidence before any renewed detention.
Why It Matters
The decision treats prolonged residence within the United States as constitutionally significant when assessing detention procedures, even if the government classifies the person as an applicant for admission subject to § 1225(b)(2). It also distinguishes statutory decisions interpreting that detention provision from an as-applied Fifth Amendment challenge.
For immigration practitioners, the order supports habeas relief where a client is detained automatically without individualized review and the government contends that administrative adjudicators cannot grant bond. The ruling further shows that immediate release may be available as a remedy for a completed procedural deprivation.