Reported / Citable
Background
Laura Delia Diaz Fossi, a Venezuelan citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2023. Immigration officials apprehended her, served her with a notice to appear, and released her on her own recognizance. The record indicated that she had no criminal history. Officials detained her again during an ICE check-in on March 30, 2026, and she remained in custody without a bond hearing.
An immigration judge ordered Diaz Fossi removed on May 13, 2026, but she timely appealed, leaving the removal order nonfinal. In her pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, she sought release or a bond hearing and asserted several constitutional claims. The court construed her challenge to continued detention as a procedural due process claim. Respondents sought summary judgment, arguing that she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and that her confinement was constitutional.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Diaz Fossi’s continued civil detention without constitutionally adequate procedures violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Applying reasoning from an earlier decision, the court concluded that her residence in the United States since 2023 was sufficient to create a liberty interest requiring adequate procedural safeguards, including an individualized determination of whether detention was warranted. Her earlier release, followed by more than two years outside custody while removal proceedings continued, strengthened that liberty interest by creating an expectation of continued freedom while she complied with release conditions. The court also noted her two daughters and involvement in community organizations.
The court emphasized that Diaz Fossi had been detained for more than five months, had no criminal conviction underlying the civil confinement, and had never received an individualized determination that she posed a danger or flight risk. It granted the habeas petition in part, denied respondents’ summary-judgment motion, and ordered her released under reasonable conditions by September 8, 2026. The court chose release rather than a bond hearing because a later hearing would not cure the completed deprivation and governing agency precedent made it unlikely that an immigration judge would conduct such a hearing. It denied her remaining requested relief without reaching the merits of her other claims.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) may bring an as-applied procedural due process challenge to continued detention without an individualized custody determination.
- The court found residence since 2023 sufficient to create a protected liberty interest and treated Diaz Fossi’s prior release as strengthening that interest.
- The appropriate habeas remedy was release under reasonable conditions, not merely an order directing immigration authorities to provide a bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision treats mandatory immigration detention under Section 1225(b)(2) as subject to as-applied Fifth Amendment scrutiny, even though the Fifth Circuit had held that the statute applies broadly to applicants for admission. The court distinguished that statutory holding from the unresolved constitutional question presented by prolonged detention without individualized procedures.
The order also shows that a district court may use its habeas authority to require release when it concludes that detention has already deprived a person of liberty without due process and that a prospective bond hearing would not adequately remedy the violation.