Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yadira Serrato Diaz, a Mexican citizen, has resided in the United States for fourteen years after entering without inspection in 2012. She maintained steady employment as a restaurant server since 2017, has family ties including U.S. citizen relatives, and has no criminal history. On March 22, 2026, immigration officials apprehended her and issued a Notice to Appear. An Immigration Judge ordered her removal on April 10, 2026.
Serrato Diaz filed a timely appeal of the removal order, which remains pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, she has remained in detention at the Laredo Processing Center throughout the administrative appeal process. She petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that her prolonged detention violates her Fifth Amendment due process rights.
Her detention resulted from new government policy: in July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice issued interim guidance interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1225 as mandating detention for all “applicants for admission,” including noncitizens who entered without inspection. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this position in September 2025. The Fifth Circuit later upheld the statute’s application to all applicants for admission in February 2026, but did not address due process challenges to that policy.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered Serrato Diaz’s immediate release by June 30, 2026. The court held that while the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez upheld the government’s interpretation of the mandatory detention statute, that decision does not foreclose as-applied due process challenges to mandatory detention under the Fifth Amendment.
Applying the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Serrato Diaz’s rights under the Due Process Clause had been violated. The court emphasized her substantial liberty interest: fourteen years of continuous U.S. residence, steady employment, U.S. citizen family members, an absence of criminal history, and deep community ties. These facts, combined with the pendency of her administrative appeal, weighed heavily against the government’s justification for continued detention without individualized procedural protections.
The court ordered the government to release Serrato Diaz under reasonable conditions and to return her identity documents and personal effects. The court also noted that if she is re-detained, she must be afforded procedural due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The court declined to award attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention statutes do not foreclose as-applied due process challenges; a noncitizen can challenge their individual detention even if the statute itself is constitutional.
- Long-term U.S. residence (14 years), employment history, family ties, and clean record create a substantial liberty interest that requires individualized justification for detention.
- Prolonged detention pending administrative appeal, without bond hearing or individualized assessment, violates procedural due process under Mathews v. Eldridge balancing.
- The Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding the statute’s reach does not settle due process questions about how that statute may be applied in specific cases.
Why It Matters
This decision signals that courts will not treat statutory authorization for detention as a complete shield against constitutional scrutiny. Although the government has expansive detention authority under immigration law, the Fifth Amendment still requires procedural fairness and individual justification—particularly when noncitizens have deep ties to the country and face prolonged detention while exercising their right to appeal. This creates significant implications for the thousands of noncitizens detained under the government’s new position following Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
The ruling also confirms that the Fifth Circuit’s February 2026 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez, while broad in statutory reach, does not resolve the narrower question of whether individual detentions satisfy due process. District courts across the country have begun reaching similar conclusions in similar factual scenarios. Immigration practitioners should consider mounting due process challenges for long-term U.S. residents and other detainees with substantial liberty interests, even when the statutory basis for detention appears clear.