Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Manuel Garcia Segui, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection in April 2022 and was apprehended by immigration officials shortly thereafter. He was issued a Notice to Appear on April 21, 2022, and released on an order of recognizance. Over the next four years, Petitioner established significant community ties, obtaining employment authorization, a Texas driver’s license, and raising two young children with his spouse in the United States.
In February 2026, following a routine reporting appointment, Petitioner was re-detained. The Government asserted that his detention was mandatory under Section 235(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, relying on interim guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice in July 2025. This guidance had been adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals in September 2025 and upheld by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (February 2026), which held that mandatory detention applies to all applicants for admission regardless of port of entry. Petitioner had no criminal history.
Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus and Temporary Restraining Order, asserting violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as Fourth Amendment and ultra vires claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas corpus petition in part, finding that Petitioner’s continued detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. Although the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez had upheld the Government’s statutory interpretation of mandatory detention authority, the court held that this decision does not foreclose as-applied due process challenges. The court relied on precedent establishing that liberty interests in freedom from detention must be protected by due process of law, including individualized justification for civil detention.
Applying the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Petitioner possessed a substantial liberty interest sufficient to trigger Fifth Amendment protections. The court identified three factors strengthening this liberty interest: (1) Petitioner’s continuous residence in the United States for four years; (2) his established community ties, including employment, state identification, and family; and (3) his prior release in 2022, which created a legitimate expectation that he would remain free from detention during the pendency of removal proceedings. The Government presented no evidence that Petitioner had violated any conditions of his prior release.
The court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner from custody by June 30, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., under his prior conditions of release, and to provide written confirmation by July 1, 2026. The court also mandated return of Petitioner’s identity documents and personal effects and required two hours’ notice to Petitioner’s counsel before release. The court cautioned that if Petitioner is re-detained, he must be afforded procedural due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Key Takeaways
- As-applied due process challenges to Section 235(b)(2) mandatory detention remain viable despite the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Buenrostro-Mendez upholding the statute’s scope.
- A noncitizen’s length of U.S. residence, community ties, and prior release can constitute a sufficient liberty interest to require constitutionally adequate detention procedures, including an individualized hearing.
- Prior release from immigration custody may create a legitimate expectation of freedom that strengthens a detainee’s liberty interest under due process analysis.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test applies to due process challenges in mandatory detention cases, requiring individualized justification for civil detention of persons with established liberty interests.
Why It Matters
This decision adds to a growing line of district court authority holding that the 2025 mandatory detention policy, while upheld on statutory grounds, does not eliminate due process protections for noncitizens with substantial U.S. ties and established liberty interests. Following Buenrostro-Mendez, numerous courts across the country have permitted bond hearings or ordered release based on as-applied due process challenges, and Garcia Segui reinforces this approach in the Fifth Circuit.
The decision is significant for practitioners representing detained noncitizens with long-term U.S. presence, community roots, or prior release. Courts appear receptive to arguments that the time spent in the country, family connections, employment, and prior release status can trigger procedural protections requiring individualized determinations before detention can be maintained. Immigration practitioners should consider whether clients with similar factual profiles can mount viable due process challenges to avoid indefinite detention without a bond hearing.