Reported / Citable
Background
Leonardo Nazario Osorio, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States on humanitarian parole in May 2019 and remained after that parole expired in December 2022. He had no criminal history, possessed employment authorization, and had a pending application to adjust status under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
ICE detained Nazario Osorio on August 30, 2026, after a sheriff’s deputy approached a vehicle in which he was a passenger and stated that he smelled marijuana. The government treated him as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Nazario Osorio petitioned for habeas relief, while the government sought either a stay pending the Fifth Circuit’s en banc resolution of a related legal issue in Rodriguez v. Ortega or summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied a stay. It concluded that the Fifth Circuit’s unexplained interim stay orders in other cases did not bar district courts from deciding unrelated habeas petitions under existing law. Applying the Landis factors, the court found that delaying a ruling would substantially burden Nazario Osorio’s liberty interest, while the ordinary burdens of litigation did not establish the hardship or inequity required for a stay.
The court held that Nazario Osorio’s ongoing detention violated procedural due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing framework. His liberty interest, nearly seven years of residence and family and employment ties, the government’s earlier decision to grant humanitarian parole, and the absence of evidence that he had become a flight risk or danger all favored relief. The court ordered his release within 48 hours under any conditions attached to his previous parole and barred re-detention or additional release conditions during removal proceedings unless an immigration judge conducts a hearing at which the government proves necessity by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Unexplained appellate stay orders in other cases did not require the district court to suspend this separate habeas proceeding.
- The court found a due-process violation under the Mathews factors, not because the approximately one-month detention was prolonged.
- Because humanitarian parole reflected a prior finding that Nazario Osorio was neither a security risk nor likely to abscond, the court ordered immediate release rather than only a bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision applies procedural due-process scrutiny to mandatory immigration detention under § 1225(b)(2) where the government previously paroled the noncitizen and offered no indication that he had since become dangerous or likely to flee. It also confirms that, absent controlling merits guidance, a pending en banc appeal and stays entered in other cases do not automatically halt habeas adjudication.
The remedy is significant: the court required release, restricted future re-detention and new release conditions without an immigration-judge hearing, and placed a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on the government.