Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nirsa Mercedes Ceballos de Parababi, a Venezuelan national and citizen, entered the United States with her husband in November 2021. After being placed in removal proceedings, she was released on her own recognizance and complied with all conditions of release. ICE detained her in February 2026 when she appeared for a scheduled check-in. Her request for humanitarian parole based on severe medical conditions was denied.
Ceballos de Parababi petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that her detention violated the Due Process Clause. The federal respondents sought summary judgment, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required her detention. Although the court discussed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, which addressed two other petitioners, it expressly declined to base its ruling on the statutory question and instead considered the as-applied procedural-due-process claim.
The Court’s Holding
Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court held that Ceballos de Parababi’s detention without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized assessment violated procedural due process. The court emphasized her years in the United States, prior release and compliance, family ties, and pursuit of relief from removal. The respondents did not contend that she posed a flight risk or danger to the community, identify another weighty governmental interest justifying detention, or point to any available procedure for an individualized determination.
The court denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, granted the habeas petition in part, and ordered her release within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those imposed before her detention. It prohibited her removal or transfer under the existing detention and barred re-detention during her removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, after a hearing, that the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that she is a flight risk or danger to the community. The court did not order a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Key Takeaways
- The court resolved the case on procedural-due-process grounds and did not decide whether § 1225(b)(2) statutorily required this petitioner’s detention.
- All three Mathews factors favored the petitioner because she had a protected liberty interest, received no individualized process, and the government offered no flight-risk, dangerousness, or comparable justification for detention.
- The remedy was release within 48 hours, with any later re-detention conditioned on a pre-detention hearing and proof by clear and convincing evidence of flight risk or danger.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that even when the government invokes mandatory immigration-detention authority, the detention’s application to a particular person may still violate procedural due process if no notice, hearing, or individualized justification is provided. It also shows that a district court may grant release—not merely direct a future bond hearing—when officials identify no process for the detainee to pursue.