Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marianela Estrada Diaz, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States in February 2024 and was released on her own recognizance days later. She alleged that she complied with every release condition, had no criminal record, obtained work authorization, developed family and community ties, and continued pursuing relief from removal.
ICE detained Estrada Diaz when she appeared for a scheduled check-in on March 29, 2026. She petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that her detention violated due process. The federal respondents sought dismissal or summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required her detention, but they did not dispute the material facts she presented.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that applying § 1225(b)(2) to detain Estrada Diaz without an individualized assessment, notice, or an opportunity to be heard violated procedural due process. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that she had a protected liberty interest and that the government identified neither adequate procedures nor a weighty interest—such as flight risk or danger to the community—justifying her detention.
The court denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion, granted the habeas petition in part, and ordered Estrada Diaz released within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those preceding her detention. It also barred her removal or transfer under the current detention and prohibited re-detention during her removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, after a hearing, that the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that she poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied to Estrada Diaz without notice, a hearing, or an individualized justification, violated procedural due process.
- All three Mathews factors favored Estrada Diaz because of her substantial liberty interest, the absence of procedural safeguards, and the government’s failure to identify a sufficient detention interest.
- The remedy was release, not a bond hearing, because the government identified no available process and did not argue that § 1226(a) applied.
Why It Matters
The decision recognizes an as-applied procedural-due-process limit on immigration detention even where Fifth Circuit precedent treats § 1225(b)(2) as imposing mandatory detention. It indicates that the statutory detention mandate does not eliminate the need for constitutionally adequate procedures when the government detains a person previously released into the United States.
The order also provides meaningful protection against renewed detention by requiring a pre-detention hearing and clear-and-convincing proof of flight risk or danger before ICE may re-detain Estrada Diaz while her removal proceedings remain pending.