Reported / Citable
Background
Jorge Roman Hernandez, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection around 2010. Federal immigration authorities detained him after a July 2026 traffic stop, and he was held at the T. Don Hutto Detention Center while removal proceedings were pending under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
Hernandez sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting immediate release or an individualized bond hearing. He also sought an injunction barring his transfer outside the district and preventing steps toward his removal while the petition remained pending.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew Davis denied the petition, holding that Hernandez’s pre-removal detention was lawful. Section 1225(b)(2) authorizes detention during removal proceedings without an individualized bond hearing, and the court concluded that neither the statute nor due process required habeas relief.
The court rejected Hernandez’s additional theories under the APA, the INA and regulations, the Suspension Clause, equal protection, the Accardi doctrine, and the Fourth Amendment. Even assuming his arrest was unlawful, the court held, that would not justify release from immigration detention or terminate removal proceedings. His detention of less than two months was not unreasonably prolonged. The court also denied injunctive relief because Hernandez had not succeeded on the merits and, as to an injunction against removal-related action, the court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
Key Takeaways
- Section 1225(b)(2) permits detention during removal proceedings without an individualized bond hearing.
- An allegedly unlawful warrantless immigration arrest does not itself entitle a detainee to habeas release.
- A request to bar transfer or removal-related action fails without success on the merits; jurisdiction may also be limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
Why It Matters
The decision applies mandatory-detention principles to a noncitizen detained pending removal proceedings and rejects multiple constitutional and statutory challenges to that detention. It also underscores that a change from prior administrations’ bond practices does not, by itself, establish an equal-protection violation when the government is applying the governing statute.