Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Egduvia Roquelina Castillo Rojas, a Venezuelan national detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She entered the U.S. on November 29, 2023, was previously paroled in 2024, complied with all expectations, has applied for political asylum, possesses no criminal record, and maintains she is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. On January 22, 2026, immigration officials detained Ms. Rojas when she appeared for a scheduled check-in appointment, providing no individualized custody hearing.
Ms. Rojas claimed her detention violated the Due Process Clause. The federal respondents moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and that her habeas claims lacked merit. They did not dispute the material facts presented by the petitioner. The court noted the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in *Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi*, which addressed mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), but chose to base its ruling on Ms. Rojas’s Due Process claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted Ms. Rojas’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that her detention without an individualized assessment or hearing violated her procedural due process rights. Applying the three-part test from *Mathews v. Eldridge*, the Court weighed Ms. Rojas’s private liberty interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation through current procedures, and the government’s interest. It found that Ms. Rojas, having been in the country for nearly two years, previously paroled, with no criminal history, and pursuing asylum, had a protected liberty interest. The respondents failed to argue any flight risk, danger, or other weighty government interest justifying her detention, nor did they identify any available procedures for notice, opportunity to be heard, or individualized determination.
Consequently, all three *Mathews* factors weighed in Ms. Rojas’s favor. The Court concluded that her detention under § 1225(b)(2) as applied, without individualized assessment or notice and opportunity to be heard, violated her right to procedural due process. Citing that the remedy for unlawful executive detention is release, the Court ordered respondents to release Ms. Rojas from custody within 48 hours to a public location, under conditions no more restrictive than those prior to her detention. The Court also denied the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and issued additional orders preventing re-detention without a pre-detention hearing demonstrating flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Immigrant detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) without an individualized assessment or hearing can violate procedural due process, especially for individuals with established community ties and no demonstrable flight risk or danger.
- The *Mathews v. Eldridge* balancing test is critical for evaluating due process claims in immigration detention, weighing individual liberty interests against government interests.
- Federal courts can issue writs of habeas corpus, including orders for immediate release, when executive detention is found to be unlawful due to procedural due process violations.
- The court explicitly prohibited re-detention of the petitioner without a prior hearing where the government must prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
This ruling reinforces the constitutional due process protections afforded to immigrants, even in the context of statutory mandatory detention provisions. It signals that simply being subject to mandatory detention statutes does not automatically override an individual’s right to an individualized assessment and hearing when their liberty is at stake, especially for those with no criminal record and demonstrated compliance. The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding against potentially arbitrary executive detention practices, even within the complex framework of immigration law.
For attorneys, this opinion provides a crucial precedent within the Southern District of Texas and offers persuasive authority for similar cases in the Fifth Circuit. It highlights the importance of challenging detention where procedural safeguards are absent, and it could influence how ICE conducts detentions and subsequent reviews, potentially leading to more individualized considerations for detainees who are not considered flight risks or dangers.