Reported / Citable
Background
Leydi Morena Anaya Martinez, an El Salvador citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2019. Immigration officials apprehended her, served her with a notice to appear, and released her on her own recognizance. She had no criminal history and remained out of custody for more than five years.
ICE re-detained Anaya Martinez at a check-in on April 8, 2026. She remained detained for nearly five months without a bond hearing. Although an immigration judge ordered her removed while her habeas petition was pending, she timely appealed, leaving the removal order nonfinal. She sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging, among other claims, a Fifth Amendment procedural due process violation.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted the habeas petition in part, denied the government’s summary-judgment motion, and held that Anaya Martinez’s continued civil detention without constitutionally adequate procedures violated procedural due process. The court concluded that Fifth Circuit precedent recognizing mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) did not foreclose an as-applied due process challenge.
The court found that Anaya Martinez had a protected liberty interest based on her residence in the United States since 2019 and her prior release pending removal proceedings. Applying its prior Mathews v. Eldridge analysis, the court emphasized that she had been detained for almost five months without an individualized determination of danger or flight risk. It ordered respondents to release her by September 8, 2026, under reasonable release conditions, rather than require a bond hearing.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory-detention authority under Section 1225(b)(2) does not eliminate an as-applied procedural due process challenge.
- Nearly five months of civil immigration detention without an individualized hearing violated due process on these facts.
- The court ordered release, denied attorney’s fees and other requested relief, and required due process if Anaya Martinez is re-detained.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to Southern District of Texas rulings recognizing that prolonged detention under Section 1225(b)(2) may require individualized procedural safeguards, notwithstanding the Fifth Circuit’s statutory interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez.
It also treats a noncitizen’s lengthy residence and prior release without alleged violations as factors strengthening the liberty interest at stake in a due process analysis.