Reported / Citable
Background
Yanelsy Carrera Figueredo, a Cuban national, entered the United States without inspection in 2022 and was initially apprehended by immigration officials before being released on an Order of Recognizance. With no criminal history, she spent over three years living in the United States until August 13, 2025, when she was re-detained by ICE at a routine check-in appointment. She was never given advance warning of her re-detention, and the government did not allege she had violated any conditions of her prior release.
An Immigration Judge ordered her removed, but Carrera Figueredo appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), leaving her removal order non-final and her BIA appeal pending. Throughout her detention, she received no bond hearing. Through her husband acting as next friend, she filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that prolonged civil detention without any individualized bond determination violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights.
Her detention arose under a July 2025 DHS/DOJ policy shift interpreting the mandatory detention provision of INA § 235 (8 U.S.C. § 1225) to cover all noncitizens who had never been formally admitted — including those who entered without inspection years earlier. The Fifth Circuit upheld that statutory interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), but that decision left open the question of whether such detention violates due process on an as-applied basis.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted the habeas petition in part and denied the government’s motion for summary judgment, ordering ICE to release Carrera Figueredo by June 3, 2026. The court held that her detention without a bond hearing deprived her of liberty without constitutionally adequate procedures in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test — as it had in its prior decision in Lopez Moncebais v. Bondi, No. 5:26-CV-268 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2026) — the court found that her liberty interest was substantial and that the government had provided no individualized justification for her continued civil detention.
The court identified two reinforcing sources of liberty interest. First, Carrera Figueredo had resided in the United States since 2022, establishing a meaningful stake in her freedom. Second, her prior release on an Order of Recognizance created a legitimate expectation, under Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005), that she would remain free from detention — or at least be entitled to seek bond — while her removal proceedings remained pending. Her unexpected re-arrest at a routine check-in, without any allegation of a violation, further strengthened that interest.
The court ordered immediate release rather than a bond hearing for three reasons: the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Buenrostro-Mendez forecloses § 1226(a) bond hearings for applicants for admission; a retroactive hearing would not cure the deprivation already suffered; and the BIA’s own position — established in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025) — is that Immigration Judges lack jurisdiction to hold such hearings for persons detained under § 1225(b)(2). The court also directed that Carrera Figueredo be released in a public place during daytime hours and that all identity documents be returned to her at the time of release.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez that § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention applies to all noncitizens who were never formally admitted does not foreclose as-applied due process challenges to that detention.
- A noncitizen’s multi-year residence in the United States, combined with a prior release from immigration custody, can create a liberty interest strong enough to require individualized procedural safeguards before continued civil detention.
- Where § 1226(a) bond hearings are unavailable under circuit precedent and the BIA has disclaimed jurisdiction to hold them, a court may remedy the due process violation by ordering outright release rather than remanding for a hearing.
- Courts in the Southern District of Texas have applied this framework consistently across factually similar § 1225(b)(2) detention cases, signaling a developing body of district-level precedent even absent appellate resolution of the due process question.
Why It Matters
This decision is one of a growing line of rulings from federal district courts — including several from the same judge — holding that the government’s expanded use of § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention, validated at the circuit level in Buenrostro-Mendez, still cannot be applied without individualized due process protections. For noncitizens who entered without inspection, were released, and then re-detained years later with no bond hearing, these courts have consistently found the constitutional floor unmet. The decisions create meaningful pressure on the government to either provide bond hearings or face habeas-based release orders.
For practitioners, the case underscores that Buenrostro-Mendez resolved only the statutory question — it did not insulate mandatory § 1225(b)(2) detention from Fifth Amendment challenge. Attorneys representing noncitizens in prolonged detention without bond hearings, particularly those with significant U.S. residence and prior periods of release, have a viable habeas path under this framework. The court’s choice of immediate release as the remedy, rather than a bond hearing, also reflects a growing judicial recognition that where no lawful hearing mechanism exists, liberty — not further process — is the appropriate cure.