Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jhonny Garcia Suriano, a Mexican national, entered the United States without inspection in 2000 and resided continuously in the country for over twenty-six years. He has no criminal history beyond minor traffic citations and is the father of U.S. citizen children. On April 7, 2026, immigration officials apprehended him and placed him in detention at the Rio Grande Detention Center in Texas without a bond hearing.
His detention stemmed from a policy shift initiated in July 2025, when DHS and DOJ issued interim guidance interpreting the mandatory detention provision of INA § 235 (8 U.S.C. § 1225) to cover all noncitizens who had not been formally admitted, including long-term residents who entered without inspection. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted that position in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit upheld the statutory interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), but that decision expressly left open whether mandatory detention under the policy could survive a constitutional due process challenge.
Garcia Suriano filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting three claims: violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (both procedural and substantive), violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and violation of the Suspension Clause. He also preserved a statutory challenge under the INA. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that Buenrostro compelled his continued detention and that no due process violation had occurred.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted the habeas petition in part, finding that Garcia Suriano’s detention without an individualized bond hearing violated his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court declined to reach the APA, Suspension Clause, or statutory claims, having found sufficient grounds for relief on the constitutional claim alone. The government’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
The court relied on its prior decision in Lopez Moncebais v. Bondi, No. 5:26-CV-268 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2026), which established that Buenrostro does not foreclose as-applied due process challenges to § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention. Applying the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the court found that Garcia Suriano’s substantial liberty interest — rooted in twenty-six years of continuous U.S. residence, a clean record, and U.S. citizen children — outweighed the government’s interest in detention without individualized process. Civil detention of that magnitude, the court held, requires individualized justification that the government failed to provide.
The court ordered respondents to release Garcia Suriano from custody by June 25, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. under reasonable conditions, to return his identity documents and personal effects upon release, and to file a status report confirming release by June 26, 2026. The court also ordered that, if he is re-detained, he must be afforded procedural due process consistent with the Fifth Amendment. His request for attorney’s fees under the EAJA was denied.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez — upholding mandatory detention of long-term residents under § 1225(b)(2) as a statutory matter — does not bar an as-applied due process challenge; detainees may still invoke the Fifth Amendment to demand individualized process.
- Under Mathews v. Eldridge, a noncitizen’s decades-long residence, family ties to U.S. citizens, and clean criminal record can establish a liberty interest weighty enough to defeat mandatory detention without a bond hearing.
- Release, not merely a bond hearing, is an available remedy for a due process violation where individualized justification for civil detention is entirely absent.
- Attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) were denied, consistent with the court’s earlier ruling in Lopez Moncebais.
Why It Matters
This decision is part of a growing body of district court rulings — in the Southern District of Texas and elsewhere — finding that the 2025 policy change dramatically expanding mandatory immigration detention cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny as applied to long-term residents with deep community ties. While the Fifth Circuit settled the statutory question in the government’s favor in Buenrostro-Mendez, courts are carving out a parallel due process lane that Buenrostro left open. That lane may be the principal avenue for detainees challenging § 1225(b)(2) detention going forward.
For practitioners, the case underscores that constitutional as-applied challenges remain viable even after an adverse circuit ruling on the underlying statute, and that facts like duration of residence, family ties, and absence of criminal history are doing real legal work in the Mathews balancing analysis. Attorneys representing detained noncitizens in the Fifth Circuit should preserve and press due process claims even where statutory arguments are foreclosed.