Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yannais Barbara Matos-Robles, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2023. She was briefly apprehended but released on her own recognizance and given a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings. She established roots in the country: obtaining work authorization, acquiring a driver’s license, maintaining compliance with all check-in requirements, and maintaining family connections through her two sisters who have legal status. In July 2025, Matos-Robles was arrested at a routine ICE check-in appointment and detained pending removal proceedings, despite her clean record and proven reliability.
For nearly one year, Matos-Robles remained in federal custody without receiving a bond hearing. In January 2026, an immigration judge ordered her removal, but she timely appealed that decision, putting her appeal pending. Her detention had stretched nearly twelve months as a matter of civil—not criminal—enforcement, with no individualized determination of whether detention was necessary.
The legal landscape shifted in July 2025 when DHS and DOJ released new guidance interpreting the mandatory detention provision of Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1225) expansively, applying it to all “applicants for admission” regardless of how they entered. The Fifth Circuit upheld this interpretation in February 2026 in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, but left open the question of whether due process protections nonetheless attach to such detention.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted Matos-Robles’s habeas petition in part, finding that her detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Although the court acknowledged that Buenrostro-Mendez permits mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2), it held that an as-applied due process challenge remains viable. The court applied the procedural due process framework from Mathews v. Eldridge, weighing the individual’s liberty interest against the government’s interest in detention.
The court identified several factors strengthening Matos-Robles’s liberty interest: her residence in the United States since 2023, her prior release on recognizance creating an expectation of freedom during removal proceedings, her demonstrated compliance with all conditions and requirements, her lack of criminal history, and her family connections in the country. Critically, the court found that nearly one year of civil detention—without any conviction and despite prior lawful release—constituted deprivation of liberty without constitutionally adequate procedures.
The court ordered Matos-Robles’s immediate release by June 30, 2026, finding that ordering a bond hearing would not cure the constitutional violation already suffered. The court rejected the remedy of a belated hearing, reasoning that the government’s unjustified deprivation of liberty cannot be remedied retroactively and that immigration judges may lack jurisdiction to grant bond hearings under the BIA’s current interpretation of the law. The court emphasized its discretion under habeas law to order release as the appropriate remedy.
Key Takeaways
- Statutory authority to detain under Section 1225(b)(2) does not eliminate Fifth Amendment due process protections; noncitizens subject to mandatory detention retain the right to bring as-applied due process challenges.
- Prior release from immigration custody and establishment of residence in the United States create a constitutionally protected liberty interest, even for noncitizens in removal proceedings.
- Extended civil detention without individualized justification violates due process; the duration of detention and demonstrated compliance strengthen a petitioner’s claim to constitutional protection.
- Courts have discretion under habeas law to order immediate release rather than a delayed bond hearing when the deprivation of liberty itself has already violated due process.
Why It Matters
This decision signals that despite the Fifth Circuit’s endorsement of broad mandatory detention authority in Buenrostro-Mendez, federal courts will not abandon constitutional protections for noncitizens languishing in civil detention for extended periods. The ruling creates tension between the government’s statutory power to detain “applicants for admission” and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, allowing fact-specific challenges where detention lacks individualized justification. For immigration practitioners and noncitizens facing prolonged detention without hearings, the decision demonstrates that Buenrostro did not foreclose arguments based on fundamental fairness and the length and conditions of confinement.
The decision is particularly significant for detainees in the Fifth Circuit (which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) who entered without inspection and were initially released before being re-detained under the government’s new policy. By anchoring protection in prior release expectations and years-long U.S. residence, the court has provided a roadmap for similar challenges, suggesting that the government’s unilateral expansion of mandatory detention may face recurring constitutional obstacles when applied to individuals who have established legitimate reliance interests in remaining free pending adjudication.