Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ingrid Celina Beltran Paredes, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2019 as a teenager. After apprehension, she was served a Notice to Appear and released on parole. While living in the United States, she graduated high school and maintained a clean criminal record. On October 7, 2025, immigration officials re-detained her. Throughout her detention, she has not received a substantive bond hearing; an Immigration Judge declined to consider her custody request, citing lack of jurisdiction. An immigration judge ordered her removal, but she filed a timely appeal, which remains pending and renders the removal order non-final.
Her detention occurs against the backdrop of a July 2025 interim guidance from DHS and DOJ interpreting Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1225) to mandate detention of all “applicants for admission,” including those who enter without inspection. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this position in September 2025. In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit held in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi that Section 1225(b)(2) applies broadly to all applicants for admission, though that decision did not address Fifth Amendment due process claims.
Beltran Paredes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that her detention without a bond hearing violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights. Immigration officials moved for summary judgment, contending that mandatory detention applied and did not violate due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition in part, finding that the government’s position on mandatory detention does not preclude Fifth Amendment due process challenges. Although Buenrostro-Mendez established that Section 1225(b)(2) applies to all applicants for admission regardless of entry method, that decision does not foreclose as-applied constitutional challenges to such detention. Applying the due process balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that deprivation of liberty without constitutionally adequate procedures violates the Fifth Amendment and warrants relief.
The court identified a cognizable liberty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment based on three factors: Beltran Paredes’s seven-year residence in the United States since 2019; her prior release on parole, which created an expectation that she would remain free during pending removal proceedings; and her five-plus years living in the community without violating release conditions. The court found that this combination of length of residence and reliance on prior release established a sufficient liberty interest requiring individualized justification for her detention. Because the government detained her without providing a bond hearing or other procedure to justify the detention, it violated her right to due process.
The court ordered her immediate release rather than merely granting a bond hearing, reasoning that a hearing after unjustified deprivation of liberty cannot cure the constitutional violation. The court also noted that the Board of Immigration Appeals has taken the position that it lacks jurisdiction to hold bond hearings for applicants for admission detained under Section 1225(b)(2), making a bond hearing an inadequate remedy.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s holding in Buenrostro-Mendez on the scope of Section 1225(b)(2) does not foreclose Fifth Amendment due process challenges to mandatory detention.
- Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention have a protectable liberty interest when they have resided in the United States for an extended period and previously benefited from release, creating a reasonable expectation of freedom during removal proceedings.
- Civil detention without individualized justification violates the Fifth Amendment, even if the detention is authorized by statute, if adequate procedures to assess the detention are not provided.
- Courts may order immediate release as the appropriate remedy for constitutional violation of detention, rather than directing a bond hearing that may be procedurally unavailable.
Why It Matters
This decision addresses a critical gap between statutory immigration detention authority and constitutional protections. While the Fifth Circuit recently expanded the government’s power to mandate detention under Section 1225(b)(2), district courts retain authority to impose constitutional limits on that power. The decision signals that extended residence in the United States and prior release can create sufficient liberty interests to trigger Fifth Amendment protections, even for noncitizens subject to removal. This narrows the government’s ability to detain without process, particularly for individuals with substantial ties to the country.
The ruling also reflects a practical concern: if the Board of Immigration Appeals refuses to hold bond hearings for applicants detained under Section 1225(b)(2), the statutory detention scheme may be constitutionally inadequate. Courts applying due process balancing must account for whether the government provides any mechanism to justify or contest detention. By ordering immediate release rather than an ineffective hearing, the court emphasizes that procedural inadequacy cannot be remedied by a procedure the responsible agency refuses to conduct.