Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Luis Villanueva Herrera, a Honduran citizen who had lived in the United States for more than 22 years and had no criminal history, was arrested by immigration officials around February 28, 2026. While pursuing relief from removal before the Board of Immigration Appeals, he remained in ICE custody without a custody hearing or an individualized determination of whether he posed a flight risk or danger to the community.
Herrera petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing among other things that his detention violated procedural due process. The federal respondents sought summary judgment, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required his detention and that his habeas claims lacked merit. They did not dispute the material facts Herrera presented.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that applying § 1225(b)(2) to detain Herrera without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an individualized assessment violated procedural due process. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Herrera had a protected liberty interest, that the absence of any hearing created a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation, and that the government had identified no flight risk, danger, or other weighty interest justifying his detention. All three factors therefore favored Herrera.
The court denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion and granted Herrera’s habeas petition in part. It ordered his release within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those existing before his detention, prohibited his removal or transfer under the challenged detention, and required the return of his identification documents. It also barred re-detention during his removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first finds, after a pre-detention hearing, that the government proved flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Even assuming § 1225(b)(2) mandated detention as a statutory matter, the court separately held that detention without any individualized process was unconstitutional as applied to Herrera.
- The government’s failure to identify any available custody-review procedure, or any individualized flight-risk or public-safety concern, caused all three Mathews factors to favor Herrera.
- Because there was no administrative process to await, the court ordered release rather than a bond hearing and imposed procedural safeguards against re-detention.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that statutory mandatory-detention authority does not end the constitutional inquiry. A noncitizen detained under § 1225(b)(2) may still obtain habeas relief when prolonged custody occurs without notice, a hearing, or an individualized justification.
The order also provides a significant practical remedy: immediate release and protection against re-detention unless the government satisfies a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard at a pre-detention hearing.