Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kenner Michael Argueta Bardales, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States in July 2019 and received humanitarian parole. He applied for political asylum and was pursuing relief from removal before the Board of Immigration Appeals. According to his uncontested submissions, he had no criminal record, was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, and had family and community ties in the United States.
Immigration authorities detained Argueta Bardales following a traffic stop on or about March 22, 2026. Proceeding pro se, he petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging among other claims that his detention violated procedural due process. The federal respondents contended that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required his detention but did not dispute his material factual allegations or otherwise oppose his habeas claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that applying § 1225(b)(2) to detain Argueta Bardales without an individualized assessment, notice, or an opportunity to be heard violated procedural due process. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that all factors favored him: he had a protected liberty interest, the absence of any available procedure created a risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government identified no flight risk, danger, or other weighty interest justifying detention.
The court granted the habeas petition in part and ordered the respondents to release Argueta Bardales within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those in effect before his detention. It also imposed notice and safe-transit requirements, ordered the return of his identification documents, barred his removal or transfer under the present detention, and prohibited re-detention during the removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied here without any individualized process, violated the petitioner’s procedural due-process rights.
- The court ordered release rather than a bond hearing because the respondents identified no process available to the petitioner and did not contend that § 1226(a) governed his detention.
- Any re-detention during the removal proceedings requires a pre-detention hearing at which the government proves flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision treats release as the appropriate habeas remedy when immigration detention continues without notice, a hearing, or an individualized justification. It also illustrates that a statutory mandatory-detention classification does not end the as-applied procedural-due-process inquiry.
The order provides unusually detailed protections surrounding release and possible re-detention, including advance notice, assistance with safe transit, restoration of identification documents, and a heightened evidentiary burden before renewed custody.