Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Pedro Zapata Obregon, a Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately 15 years, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. An immigration judge ordered him removed in November 2023, and his appeal remained pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Zapata Obregon had been arrested for assault in 2013, released on immigration bond that year, and convicted in 2014 of assault of a family member, for which he received a 30-day jail sentence. He was arrested again in October 2025 for assault of a family member, but that charge was dismissed, and he was transferred to ICE custody. An immigration judge later denied bond for lack of jurisdiction. The federal respondents sought dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) required his detention and that his habeas claims lacked merit.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that applying § 1225(b)(2) to detain Zapata Obregon without an individualized assessment, notice, or an opportunity to be heard violated procedural due process. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that all three factors favored him: he had a protected liberty interest, the absence of procedures created a risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government did not argue that flight risk, danger to the community, or another weighty interest justified his current detention.
The court denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion and granted the habeas petition in part. It ordered Zapata Obregon released to a public location within 48 hours under conditions no more restrictive than those preceding the detention, required advance notice of the release and the return of his identification documents, and barred his removal or transfer under the present detention. It also prohibited re-detention during the removal proceedings unless an immigration judge first holds a hearing at which the government proves flight risk or danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), as applied to Zapata Obregon without notice, a hearing, or an individualized assessment, violated procedural due process.
- The court ordered his release within 48 hours because the respondents identified no available process for evaluating the justification for his detention.
- Any re-detention during the pending removal proceedings requires a pre-detention hearing and clear-and-convincing proof that he poses a flight risk or danger to the community.
Why It Matters
The decision recognizes an as-applied procedural due-process limit on immigration detention even after the Fifth Circuit classified certain long-term residents as subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The court did not rest its decision on a different interpretation of the detention statute; it focused instead on the complete absence of an individualized procedure for determining whether confinement was justified.
The remedy also goes beyond directing immigration authorities to conduct a bond hearing. Because the respondents identified no process to await, the court ordered release within 48 hours and imposed procedural protections against re-detention while Zapata Obregon’s removal proceedings remain pending.