Reported / Citable
Background
Yasmira Margarita Negrette Briceno, a Venezuelan national, entered the United States without inspection in September 2021 and was released on her own recognizance shortly after apprehension, with no removal proceedings initiated against her. In 2022, she affirmatively applied for political asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. She lived in the United States for over four years, during which time she received ongoing medical care for cardiovascular disease and other conditions.
On November 21, 2025, when Negrette Briceno appeared as required for a scheduled ICE check-in appointment, agents took her into custody. The government did not point to any violated condition of release or other changed circumstance justifying re-detention. She filed a § 2241 habeas petition arguing, among other claims, that her continued detention without any individualized hearing violated the Due Process Clause. The government moved to dismiss, contending she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and that her constitutional claims failed.
The court declined to resolve the statutory mandatory-detention question in light of the Fifth Circuit’s February 2026 ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, which held that long-term interior residents not previously apprehended fall under § 1225(b)(2). Instead, the court addressed the petitioner’s as-applied due process challenge directly, consistent with a growing body of district court decisions reaching the same constitutional question.
The Court’s Holding
Applying the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. held that all three factors weighed in the petitioner’s favor and that her continued detention without any individualized hearing violated the Due Process Clause. The court found that Negrette Briceno had acquired a constitutionally protected liberty interest through more than four years of continuous residence, community ties, a pending application for immigration relief, and a prior release on recognizance — none of which the government contested.
The court rejected the government’s reliance on Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), noting that Demore addressed a facial challenge to a different statute covering convicted criminal aliens, who had received criminal procedural protections and faced statistically brief detentions. By contrast, Negrette Briceno received no notice, no hearing, no individualized determination, and faced detention of indefinite length with no showing of danger or flight risk. The court also distinguished DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020), explaining that a challenge to detention rather than to the immigration proceedings themselves does not implicate the sovereign prerogative over admission or exclusion.
The court granted the writ and ordered the government to release Negrette Briceno within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those in place before her detention. The order further prohibits re-detention during her pending removal proceedings unless the government first demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence before an immigration judge that she poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied to a long-term interior resident with established community ties, pending immigration relief, and no history of absconding, violates procedural due process when no individualized hearing is provided.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test governs as-applied due process challenges to civil immigration detention; a statute cannot eliminate constitutionally required minimum procedures.
- The court ordered release — not merely a bond hearing — because the government acknowledged no available process, and set a clear and convincing evidence standard before any re-detention during ongoing removal proceedings.
- The decision aligns with a broad and growing consensus among district courts (and the Sixth Circuit) holding that as-applied challenges to detention without individualized hearings survive Thuraissigiam, Demore, and Jennings v. Rodriguez.
Why It Matters
This decision is one of a substantial and accelerating line of rulings from federal courts across the country holding that the government cannot indefinitely detain long-term residents under § 1225(b)(2) without providing any mechanism for an individualized assessment of flight risk or dangerousness. The court’s order — requiring release within 48 hours and prohibiting re-detention absent a clear-and-convincing-evidence hearing before an immigration judge — illustrates the practical relief courts are willing to impose when the government offers no procedural alternative.
For immigration practitioners, the decision reinforces that clients who have lived in the United States for years, complied with supervision conditions, and have pending relief applications have a strong constitutional foundation for as-applied habeas challenges to § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention. The court’s explicit standard for re-detention — clear and convincing evidence of flight risk or danger presented at a pre-detention hearing — also provides a concrete benchmark that counsel can invoke in future proceedings.