Reported / Citable
Background
Diana Cobarrubias-Lopez, a Mexican national, entered the United States without inspection in 2009 and lived continuously in the country for approximately seventeen years. She was arrested at a Border Patrol checkpoint in Falfurrias, Texas on January 9, 2026, and served with a Notice to Appear the following day. She was then transferred to the Laredo Detention Center, where she remained detained without a bond hearing. She has no criminal history in the United States, is married to a U.S. citizen, and completed her secondary education here.
Her detention stemmed from a July 2025 policy shift in which DHS and DOJ announced that the mandatory detention provision of INA § 235, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1225, applies to all noncitizens who have not been formally admitted — including those who entered without inspection years earlier, not just those arriving at ports of entry. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this interpretation in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit upheld that statutory reading in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), but expressly left open the question of whether mandatory detention under that framework could survive a constitutional due process challenge.
Cobarrubias-Lopez filed a § 2241 habeas petition asserting both a statutory claim under the INA and an as-applied due process claim under the Fifth Amendment. The government was ordered to respond twice — once by the court’s initial order and again by a subsequent order to show cause — but never filed any response. The court treated the petition as unopposed and resolved it on the merits.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted the habeas petition in part, holding that Cobarrubias-Lopez’s continued civil detention without any individualized bond determination violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Relying on its earlier decision in Lopez Moncebais v. Bondi, No. 5:26-CV-268 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2026), the court reaffirmed that Buenrostro-Mendez resolves only the statutory question and does not foreclose as-applied due process challenges to mandatory detention. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found that petitioner’s substantial liberty interest — grounded in seventeen years of continuous residence, family ties to a U.S. citizen, and community roots — outweighed the government’s interest in detention without individualized process.
The court ordered immediate release rather than a bond hearing, exercising its equitable habeas discretion. It reasoned that three factors made a bond hearing an inadequate remedy: (1) the Fifth Circuit has held that § 1226(a), which authorizes bond hearings, does not apply to applicants for admission detained under § 1225(b)(2); (2) a hearing held after an unjustified deprivation of liberty does not cure that deprivation; and (3) the BIA’s own position is that immigration judges lack jurisdiction to conduct bond hearings for persons detained under § 1225(b)(2), making any ordered hearing unlikely to occur.
Respondents were directed to release Cobarrubias-Lopez by June 5, 2026 at 5:00 p.m., return her identity documents and personal effects, and file a status report confirming release by June 8, 2026. The court denied her request for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, consistent with its prior ruling in Lopez Moncebais. The court further ordered that if she were re-detained, she must be afforded procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez — which upheld mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) for all unadmitted noncitizens — does not foreclose as-applied Fifth Amendment due process challenges; detainees may still argue that prolonged civil detention without individualized review violates their constitutional rights.
- Under Mathews v. Eldridge, courts will weigh long-term U.S. residence, family ties to citizens, and community connections as significant liberty interests that can override the government’s interest in mandatory detention without a hearing.
- Where a bond hearing would be a legal nullity — because the BIA has held immigration judges lack jurisdiction to grant one — district courts may order outright release as the appropriate habeas remedy rather than a futile procedural remedy.
- The government’s failure to respond to court orders in § 2241 habeas cases can result in the petition being treated as unopposed and decided against the government on the merits.
Why It Matters
This decision is one in a growing line of federal district court rulings pushing back against the post-2025 expansion of mandatory immigration detention to long-term U.S. residents who entered without inspection. While the Fifth Circuit has settled the statutory question in the government’s favor, courts in that circuit are now confronting the constitutional floor: how long, and under what circumstances, can the government hold a person in civil detention without any individualized assessment of flight risk or danger? Judge Kazen’s ruling signals that for noncitizens with deep community ties and no criminal history, the answer may be not at all.
The practical significance of the remedy is equally notable. By ordering release directly — rather than a bond hearing that the BIA says it has no jurisdiction to conduct — the court short-circuited what could otherwise become an indefinite procedural limbo for detainees. Attorneys representing clients in similar postures should note the court’s explicit reasoning that ordering a jurisdictionally unavailable bond hearing is not a meaningful remedy, and that the due process violation itself justifies release.