Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Soryada Del Carmen Acuna-Aramz, a Nicaraguan citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2022 and was apprehended by immigration officials shortly thereafter. She was released on parole valid through August 2022 and has no criminal history. In May 2025, she was re-detained in San Antonio, Texas. She requested a bond hearing, but the Immigration Judge declined, asserting that she was subject to mandatory detention under the government’s then-recent interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). An order of removal was issued on November 6, 2025, but remains non-final because the petitioner filed a pending appeal.
The government adopted its mandatory detention interpretation in July 2025, treating all noncitizens without inspection as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this position in September 2025 in Matter of Yajure Hurtado. In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit upheld the statutory interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, holding that Section 1225(b)(2) applies to all applicants for admission. However, Buenrostro did not address whether mandatory detention could still be challenged on constitutional due process grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition, finding that Acuna-Aramz’s detention violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights despite the government’s statutory authority to detain her as an applicant for admission. The court held that Buenrostro-Mendez does not foreclose as-applied due process challenges to mandatory detention, and that noncitizens retain liberty interests protected by the Constitution.
The court found that Acuna-Aramz possessed a substantial liberty interest based on two factors: (1) her residence in the United States since 2022, and (2) her prior release on parole, which created an expectation that she would not be detained during the pendency of her removal proceedings. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and concluded that the government’s failure to provide an individualized determination regarding detention—such as through a bond hearing—violated due process.
Rather than ordering a bond hearing, the court ordered Acuna-Aramz’s immediate release, reasoning that a hearing after unlawful detention cannot cure the constitutional violation. The court also noted that Section 1226(a), which provides for bond hearings, does not apply to applicants for admission, and that an Immigration Judge would likely lack jurisdiction to hold the requested hearing under the Board’s current interpretation.
Key Takeaways
- Statutory authority to detain under the INA does not eliminate constitutional due process protections; as-applied due process challenges remain available even where detention is otherwise statutorily authorized.
- Noncitizens with significant ties to the United States—such as years of residence and prior release—possess protected liberty interests that require individualized justification for civil detention.
- Prior release from immigration custody strengthens a noncitizen’s liberty interest by establishing an expectation of freedom during removal proceedings.
- Immediate release is the appropriate remedy for unlawful detention; ordering a belated bond hearing does not cure a deprivation that has already occurred unlawfully.
Why It Matters
This decision is part of an emerging split in federal courts over the constitutional limits of the government’s mandatory detention policy. While the Fifth Circuit upheld the government’s statutory interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez, this and similar decisions in the Southern District of Texas hold that statutory authority does not shield detention from constitutional scrutiny. The court’s reasoning—that liberty interests arise from both residence and legitimate expectations created by prior government action—may apply broadly to other noncitizens detained under the same policy, particularly those with long-term U.S. presence or prior releases.
For immigration practitioners, the decision clarifies that mandatory detention is not absolute; clients with substantial ties to the United States may have viable due process defenses. The decision also establishes that courts may order immediate release rather than remand for a bond hearing when detention has been unlawfully prolonged without constitutional procedures. The court’s reliance on prior decisions like Lopez Moncebais suggests this reasoning may be replicated across the Southern District and potentially other circuits.