Reported / Citable
Background
Farhod Bobomirzaev, a citizen of Uzbekistan, arrived in the United States in July 2023 as an applicant for admission and was released on humanitarian parole. He applied for asylum and withholding of removal, married a U.S. citizen, and obtained work authorization. Immigration officials detained him in October 2025, and an immigration judge declined his request for custody redetermination for lack of jurisdiction.
Bobomirzaev was ordered removed in March 2026, but his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending, so the removal order was not final. After previously rejecting his due-process challenge, the district court consolidated his two cases and reconsidered its ruling in light of his extended detention and intervening legal developments. By the time of this order, he had been detained for more than eleven months without an individualized determination that he posed a danger or flight risk.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Bobomirzaev’s continued civil detention without constitutionally adequate procedures violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. It found that his residence in the United States since 2023 was sufficient to create a protected liberty interest requiring an individualized determination of whether detention was justified. His earlier humanitarian parole and years outside custody strengthened that interest by creating an expectation that he would remain free, or at least could seek bond, while complying with release conditions; respondents did not allege that he had violated any such conditions.
The court concluded that Fifth Circuit precedent construing 8 U.S.C. § 1225 to require detention of applicants for admission did not foreclose an as-applied procedural due-process challenge. It also determined that an unexplained Fifth Circuit stay order in related litigation did not bind it on the merits. Exercising its habeas remedial authority, the court ordered Bobomirzaev released under reasonable conditions by October 2, 2026, rather than ordering a bond hearing.
The court granted the habeas petition in part and granted reconsideration, but denied all other requested relief, including attorney’s fees. It did not reach the merits of Bobomirzaev’s remaining statutory and regulatory claims. The order further required constitutionally adequate procedural protections if he is detained again.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant for admission detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 may bring an as-applied procedural due-process challenge to prolonged detention.
- The court found residence since 2023 sufficient to create a protected liberty interest, while prior humanitarian parole and compliant release strengthened that interest.
- Release, rather than a belated bond hearing, was the appropriate remedy for more than eleven months of detention without an individualized danger-or-flight-risk determination.
Why It Matters
The order distinguishes the statutory question of whether § 1225 authorizes mandatory detention from the constitutional question of whether detention without individualized procedures violates due process. It also shows that prior release and extended residence may materially affect the due-process analysis even for a person classified as an arriving alien.
The remedy is significant: the court ordered release under reasonable conditions instead of directing immigration authorities to conduct a bond hearing, reasoning that a later hearing would not cure the completed deprivation and that existing agency precedent made such a hearing unlikely.