Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2007 and has resided here for nearly two decades. He formed a common law marriage with a U.S. citizen and has two U.S. citizen stepchildren. He has no known criminal history. On March 9, 2026, immigration officials detained him and served a Notice to Appear in immigration court. Despite remaining in federal custody, Petitioner never received a substantive bond hearing. An immigration judge ordered his removal on May 28, 2026, but Petitioner timely appealed, making the removal order non-final.
The government’s detention authority derives from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s July 2025 interim guidance, which reinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1225 as mandating detention for all “applicants for admission,” including those who entered without inspection. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this position in September 2025, and the Fifth Circuit upheld it in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi (February 2026). However, that Fifth Circuit decision did not address whether Fifth Amendment due process protections could apply to such detention.
Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition challenging his detention as a violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights, requesting immediate release or a bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition in part, holding that his detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The court rejected the government’s argument that mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2) forecloses all due process challenges. Citing its prior decision in Lopez Moncebais v. Bondi, the court determined that an as-applied due process challenge to mandatory detention is viable under Supreme Court precedent and that liberty interests in freedom from detention must be protected by constitutionally adequate procedures.
Applying the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court focused on Petitioner’s length of residence in the United States since 2007—nearly two decades—as creating a sufficient liberty interest. This long-term residence established that Petitioner was entitled to an individualized determination of whether detention was justified, not automatic mandatory detention without procedural safeguards. The court found that the government’s failure to provide such procedures constituted a deprivation of liberty without due process.
Rather than ordering a bond hearing, the court exercised its equitable discretion to order Petitioner’s immediate release, reasoning that a hearing after unlawful deprivation does not cure the constitutional violation and that immigration judges may lack jurisdiction to conduct such hearings under the Board of Immigration Appeals’ current interpretation. Respondents were ordered to release Petitioner by June 30, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. under reasonable conditions.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Amendment due process rights are not entirely displaced by the INA’s mandatory detention provisions, even after the Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro decision, and as-applied challenges remain viable.
- An noncitizen’s length of residence in the United States creates a constitutionally protectable liberty interest sufficient to require individualized justification for civil detention.
- When detention violates due process, a court may order immediate release in its equitable discretion rather than merely ordering a belated bond hearing.
- A habeas petitioner detained without substantive process despite nearly two decades of lawful residence in the United States presents a compelling due process violation warranting relief.
Why It Matters
This decision rejects an absolutist reading of the government’s new mandatory detention policy. While Buenrostro-Mendez established that Section 1225 applies to all applicants for admission regardless of entry method, courts retain authority to evaluate whether specific applications of that statute comply with constitutional due process requirements. For noncitizens with deep ties to the United States—including family, length of residence, and lack of criminal history—the Constitution may demand individualized hearings before detention, not automatic lockup.
The decision signals that federal courts in Texas and elsewhere will continue to scrutinize the government’s detention practices post-Buenrostro, particularly where petitioners have established significant liberty interests through years of lawful presence. Immigration practitioners should note that this court views immediate release as an appropriate remedy for due process violations, not merely a bond hearing in the future. The ruling also underscores uncertainty in the Fifth Circuit’s application of its own precedent, with circuit law on mandatory detention in tension with courts’ obligations to protect constitutional rights.