Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Zambrano Machado — denied habeas relief from mandatory immigration detention without a bond hearing

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Jhonder E. Zambrano Machado v. Warden ERO El Paso Camp East Montana, Field Office Director, ICE El Paso Field Office, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Attorney General of the United States of America
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Judge
Leon Schydlower
Date Decided
October 29, 2026
Docket No.
3:25-cv-00740-LS
Topics
Immigration Detention, Habeas Corpus, Bond Hearings, Due Process

Background

Jhonder E. Zambrano Machado, a Venezuelan citizen in immigration custody, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while removal proceedings were underway. The court noted that more than 700 petitions seeking release from immigration custody during removal proceedings had been filed in the court.

Zambrano Machado had been ordered removed, but his appeal remained pending, so the court treated him as not yet subject to a final removal order. He sought relief from pre-removal-order detention, including relief based on the absence of a bond hearing and an asserted due-process violation.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the habeas petition. It held that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi foreclosed the argument that Zambrano Machado was unlawfully detained without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Because he had not shown that he was “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) during his removal proceedings.

The court also held that the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara foreclosed the argument that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) violated Zambrano Machado’s due-process rights. The court denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.

Key Takeaways

  • A noncitizen in removal proceedings who cannot show a clear entitlement to admission is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
  • Under binding Fifth Circuit precedent, such a detainee is not entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
  • Fifth Circuit precedent also foreclosed the petitioner’s due-process challenge to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).

Why It Matters

The decision applies two recent Fifth Circuit rulings to reject statutory and constitutional challenges to pre-removal-order immigration detention. For district courts within the Fifth Circuit, those precedents foreclose claims seeking a § 1226(a) bond hearing or release on due-process grounds when § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs the detention.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top