Reported / Citable
Background
Angel Eduardo Chen Coy, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2023. Immigration authorities initially released him on his own recognizance, and the record reflected no known criminal history. ICE re-detained him at a check-in on October 30, 2025.
Chen Coy remained detained for more than ten months without a bond hearing. Although an immigration judge ordered him removed in December 2025, his timely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending, so the removal order was not final. He petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his continued detention without an individualized hearing violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted the habeas petition in part, denied the government’s summary-judgment motion, and held that Chen Coy’s continued civil detention without constitutionally adequate procedures violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The court concluded that Fifth Circuit precedent construing 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to cover applicants for admission did not foreclose an as-applied procedural due process challenge. Applying its reasoning from an earlier similar case and the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing framework, the court found that Chen Coy had a sufficient liberty interest based on his residence in the United States since 2023 and his prior two-year release. His more than ten months of detention without an individualized assessment of danger or flight risk was unconstitutional. The court ordered his release, rather than a bond hearing, by September 4, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) does not foreclose an as-applied procedural due process challenge.
- A noncitizen’s prior release and time living in the United States may strengthen the liberty interest implicated by later civil immigration detention.
- For this detainee, more than ten months of detention without an individualized hearing on danger or flight risk violated due process.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to Southern District of Texas rulings recognizing constitutional limits on prolonged detention of applicants for admission, even after the Fifth Circuit’s statutory ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi. It also treats an unexplained Fifth Circuit stay order in related litigation as nonbinding on the merits.
Most notably, the court deemed release—not a belated bond hearing—the appropriate habeas remedy, reasoning that the existing detention regime did not provide a viable bond-hearing mechanism and that a later hearing would not cure the completed deprivation of liberty.