Reported / Citable
Background
Angel Gabriel Olmedo-Portillo, a Salvadoran citizen, entered the United States without inspection in December 2021. After asserting a credible-fear claim, he was released on parole in March 2022 and later filed a pending asylum and withholding application. Immigration authorities detained him at a scheduled check-in in March 2026. He had no criminal history and had not received an individualized bond hearing.
An immigration judge ordered Olmedo-Portillo removed in June 2026, and he timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. He remained detained during that appeal. In his § 2241 petition, he challenged his continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and sought release, asserting statutory and Fifth Amendment due-process claims.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted the habeas petition in part, holding that Olmedo-Portillo’s continued civil detention without constitutionally adequate procedures violated procedural due process. The court found that his years of residence in the United States created a protected liberty interest, strengthened by his prior parole and years of compliance outside custody.
The court concluded that detention for more than six months without an individualized determination of danger or flight risk was unconstitutional on these facts. It rejected the government’s argument that a Fifth Circuit stay order in related litigation controlled the merits, and held that the appropriate remedy was release—not a bond hearing—because a later hearing would not cure the deprivation and immigration judges would likely lack jurisdiction to provide one under the government’s position. The court ordered respondents to release him by October 15, 2026, subject to reasonable conditions, denied the government’s summary-judgment motion, and denied all other requested relief, including attorney’s fees.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen detained under § 1225(b) may pursue an as-applied procedural due-process challenge to mandatory detention.
- Years of U.S. residence and prior parole may establish and strengthen a protected liberty interest in freedom from civil detention.
- On these facts, more than six months of detention without an individualized danger or flight-risk determination required release.
Why It Matters
The decision continues the Southern District of Texas court’s approach that Fifth Circuit precedent interpreting § 1225(b) does not foreclose individualized due-process challenges to prolonged immigration detention. It also treats immediate release as an available habeas remedy where the court concludes that a bond hearing would not adequately redress the constitutional violation.