Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Lamothe Ceballos — Court denied Cuban detainee’s habeas petition seeking release from immigration custody

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Julio Alexis Lamothe Ceballos v. Michael Walking, Warden of Camp East Montana, and Mary De Anda-Ybarra, Acting ICE Area Field Office DRT
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division
Judge
Leon Schydlower
Date Decided
October 27, 2026
Docket No.
3:26-cv-01759-LS
Topics
Immigration Detention; Habeas Corpus; Due Process; Bond Hearings

Background

Julio Alexis Lamothe Ceballos, a Cuban citizen in removal proceedings, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained by immigration authorities. He was not subject to a final removal order.

The petition was one of more than 700 filed in the Western District of Texas seeking release from immigration custody during removal proceedings. The district court recognized that it had jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 challenge to pre-removal-order detention.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed any claim that Lamothe Ceballos was unlawfully detained without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) during his removal proceedings.

The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated due process. It denied all pending motions as moot and ordered the case closed. The court added that if Lamothe Ceballos had received a final removal order, been removed, or otherwise been released after filing suit, the petition was denied as moot.

Key Takeaways

  • A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) under binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
  • The petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
  • The Fifth Circuit’s en banc precedent foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention.

Why It Matters

The ruling applies two recent Fifth Circuit decisions to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal immigration detention. For similar habeas petitions filed in federal district courts within the Fifth Circuit, those precedents substantially limit claims seeking bond hearings or release for detainees governed by § 1225(b)(2)(A).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top