Chourio Fuenmayor v. Bondi — Court grants habeas petition, orders bond hearing for ICE detainee held over 90 days

Reported / Citable

Background

Migledy Beatriz Chourio Fuenmayor is a detainee held in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Through counsel, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging her continued detention. She has been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) for more than 90 days. The government filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the petition.

The Court’s Holding

The district court granted the habeas petition in part. Because Chourio Fuenmayor has been detained for more than 90 days under § 1225(b)(2)(A), she is entitled to a bond hearing under the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega (5th Cir. July 2, 2026). The government must either release her from custody or hold a bond hearing by August 10, 2026.

If a bond hearing is held, the government must articulate an individualized justification for continued detention without bond, per Sosnava Rodriguez. The government must provide at least 48 hours’ notice to the petitioner and counsel. The court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part the petitioner’s motion to expedite.

Key Takeaways

• Detainees held under § 1225(b)(2)(A) for more than 90 days are entitled to a bond hearing as a matter of law.
• The burden shifts to the government to articulate an individualized justification for continued detention without bond.
• Summary judgment in the government’s favor was improper when the petitioner’s statutory right to a bond hearing applied.
• Procedural protections include 48 hours’ advance notice and a hearing before release or continued detention.

Why It Matters

This order applies the Fifth Circuit’s newly established Sosnava Rodriguez precedent, which substantially protects immigration detainees by creating a hard deadline for bond hearings. For practitioners, it establishes that extended administrative detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) triggers constitutional and statutory protections. The opinion confirms that once 90 days pass, the government cannot indefinitely detain without justification.

The case also affects ICE detention policy in the Fifth Circuit: it imposes clear procedural requirements and forces individualized hearings rather than blanket detention. The court’s timeline—with updates due August 17 and a final advisory by September 10—suggests ongoing judicial supervision of immigration detention practices.