Reported / Citable
Background
Estela Ninoska Escoto-Rodriguez, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2019. Immigration officials apprehended her and released her on her own recognizance. She was re-detained at an ICE check-in on January 27, 2026, and had remained in federal immigration custody for more than seven months without a bond hearing.
Escoto-Rodriguez has no criminal history, is the mother of a 7-year-old U.S.-citizen child, and represented that she had maintained stable employment. An immigration judge ordered her removed in May 2026, but she timely appealed, leaving the removal order nonfinal. The government maintained that she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted the § 2241 habeas petition in part, denied the government’s summary-judgment motion, and held that Escoto-Rodriguez’s continued civil detention without constitutionally adequate procedures violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Applying its earlier due-process analysis in Lopez Moncebais v. Bondi, the court concluded that Escoto-Rodriguez had a protected liberty interest based on her residence in the United States since 2019 and her prior release from immigration custody, which created an expectation of liberty during removal proceedings absent noncompliance with release conditions. Her more than seven months of detention without an individualized determination of danger or flight risk was unconstitutional. The court ordered her release by September 11, 2026, under reasonable conditions, rather than a bond hearing, and denied all other requested relief, including attorney’s fees.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez on § 1225(b)(2)’s scope did not foreclose an as-applied procedural due-process challenge to detention under that provision.
- An unexplained Fifth Circuit stay order in the related Sosnava-Rodriguez litigation did not bar the district court from reaching the merits.
- For this petitioner, prolonged civil immigration detention without an individualized assessment of danger or flight risk required release as the habeas remedy.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to Southern District of Texas rulings recognizing that noncitizens treated as subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) may still bring individualized Fifth Amendment challenges. The court emphasized that the detention statute’s application does not eliminate constitutional limits on prolonged civil detention without adequate process.
It also reflects the court’s view that, where immigration judges lack authority to conduct a bond hearing for a person classified as an applicant for admission, a later hearing may not cure the deprivation and immediate release may be the appropriate remedy.