Reported / Citable
Background
Junior Antonio Diaz Malavar, a Venezuelan citizen, entered the United States in September 2023, received a notice to appear in removal proceedings, and was released. ICE detained him on August 12, 2026, as he left a medical appointment in San Antonio, Texas, and confined him at the T. Don Hutto Detention Center.
Diaz Malavar filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment. The government maintained that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required his detention without a bond hearing. The court excused administrative exhaustion as futile because the government simultaneously asserted that immigration judges lacked authority to consider bond for people in Diaz Malavar’s position.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that detaining Diaz Malavar without any opportunity to challenge his confinement through a bond hearing violated procedural due process. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that his nearly three years at liberty in the United States gave him a substantial interest in freedom from detention; the absence of any individualized review created a strong risk of erroneous deprivation; and a bond hearing would address the government’s interests in preventing flight and protecting the community without imposing a significant additional burden.
The court distinguished Supreme Court precedent concerning noncitizens apprehended near the border because Diaz Malavar had lived in the country for almost three years and sought an opportunity to obtain release, not a right to admission or continued presence. It also explained that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi addressed statutory interpretation rather than the constitutional due-process issue presented here.
Granting the habeas petition, the court ordered Diaz Malavar’s immediate release under conditions no more restrictive than those existing before his detention. It also enjoined respondents from detaining him again without first holding a noticed bond hearing at which the government must prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who lived at liberty in the United States for nearly three years had a cognizable and weighty liberty interest in avoiding detention without individualized review.
- Administrative exhaustion was futile because the government contended both that detention was mandatory and that an immigration judge lacked authority to grant bond.
- The court ordered immediate release rather than merely directing a later bond hearing and required clear and convincing evidence before any renewed detention.
Why It Matters
The decision treats the constitutional right to individualized process as distinct from the statutory question whether Section 1225(b)(2) applies to a noncitizen who has already lived in the country for an extended period. It therefore provides a due-process route to habeas relief even after the Fifth Circuit rejected a narrower statutory interpretation of the detention provision.
The order also supplies a consequential remedy: immediate release and protection against renewed detention without advance process. For similarly situated detainees, the reasoning supports challenges to confinement imposed without any assessment of flight risk or dangerousness.