Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Niurka Ruiz Argilagos, a Cuban national, entered the United States in May 2022 and was released on her own recognizance. According to her uncontested account, she complied with the conditions of release, had no criminal record, was married to a lawful permanent resident, and posed neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. Immigration officials detained her in September 2025 when she reported for a supervision appointment. An immigration judge later ordered her removal, and her appeal remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Proceeding without counsel, Ruiz Argilagos petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and alleged that her continued ICE detention violated due process. The federal respondents moved to stay the case pending the Fifth Circuit’s en banc consideration of a related immigration-detention case or, alternatively, for summary judgment on the ground that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required her detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court declined to stay the case. It explained that the Fifth Circuit’s order staying the three district-court judgments under review in Sosnava Rodriguez did not state that it applied beyond those judgments. The court also did not resolve the habeas petition through statutory interpretation. Instead, it held that detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied to Ruiz Argilagos without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized assessment, violated procedural due process.
Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that Ruiz Argilagos had a protected liberty interest, that the absence of any individualized procedure created a risk of erroneous deprivation, and that the government identified no flight risk, danger, or other weighty interest justifying her detention. It granted the petition in part and ordered her release within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those imposed before her detention. The court also barred her transfer or removal under the existing detention and prohibited re-detention during the removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first found, by clear and convincing evidence, that she posed a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory-detention authority under § 1225(b)(2) did not eliminate the petitioner’s as-applied right to procedural due process.
- All three Mathews factors favored the petitioner because she had a substantial liberty interest, received no individualized process, and was not shown to present a flight risk or danger.
- The remedy was release rather than a statutory bond hearing, with any later re-detention conditioned on a pre-detention hearing and clear-and-convincing proof.
Why It Matters
The decision treats habeas release as an available remedy when an immigration detainee is held without any procedure for testing whether detention is individually justified. It also shows that a district court may address an as-applied constitutional challenge without deciding whether the governing immigration statute generally mandates detention.
The order provides protections extending beyond immediate release: advance notice and safe-transit assistance, return of identification documents, and a hearing requirement before any re-detention while removal proceedings remain pending.