Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yanisley DeMoya Rodriguez, a Cuban national, entered the United States in November 2021 and was released on her own recognizance shortly afterward. Immigration officials detained her in December 2025. She has no criminal record, has relatives who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and applied for relief from removal.
An immigration judge ordered Rodriguez removed to Cuba in March 2026, but her appeal remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. She petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that her detention violated due process. The government moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and that her habeas claims lacked merit.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that applying § 1225(b)(2) to detain Rodriguez without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized assessment violated her procedural-due-process rights. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that Rodriguez had a protected liberty interest and that the government had identified neither procedures for challenging her detention nor a weighty interest—such as flight risk or danger to the community—justifying it.
The court denied the government’s motion and granted Rodriguez’s habeas petition in part. It ordered her released within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those imposed before her detention, prohibited her removal or transfer under the existing detention, and barred re-detention while removal proceedings remained pending unless an immigration judge first found, after a hearing, that the government had shown by clear and convincing evidence that she posed a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied to Rodriguez without an individualized assessment or any opportunity to be heard, violated procedural due process.
- The court ordered immediate release rather than a bond hearing because the government identified no available process and did not contend that § 1226(a) applied.
- Any re-detention during the pending 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 distinguishes statutory authority to detain from the constitutional procedures required in an individual case. Even after accepting the Fifth Circuit’s treatment of § 1225(b)(2) as a mandatory-detention provision, the court concluded that detention without notice, a hearing, or an individualized justification could not constitutionally continue on these facts.
The order also provides unusually concrete habeas relief: release within 48 hours, restoration of identification documents, protection against transfer or removal under the existing detention, and procedural safeguards against re-detention.