Reported / Citable
Background
Lizzandra Avila-Delgado, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2022. She was apprehended by immigration officials, served a Notice to Appear, and released from custody. She has no criminal history. Years later, she was re-detained without receiving a bond hearing, despite having a timely appeal pending from a removal order.
Avila-Delgado’s detention occurred under a July 2025 interim guidance issued by DHS and DOJ that interpreted Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (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 upheld this statutory interpretation in February 2026 (Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi), but multiple district courts found constitutional due process violations with the detention scheme.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Avila-Delgado’s habeas corpus petition, finding her detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court determined that even noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2) can bring as-applied due process challenges. The court found that Avila-Delgado possessed a sufficient liberty interest requiring constitutionally adequate procedures, including individualized justification for her detention.
The court emphasized that Avila-Delgado’s liberty interest was strengthened by two factors: (1) her residence in the United States since 2022, and (2) her prior release, which created an expectation that she would remain free from detention during her removal proceedings. The government offered no evidence contradicting her detention without a bond hearing, and she complied with all conditions of her prior release.
Rather than merely ordering a bond hearing, the court ordered Avila-Delgado’s immediate release by July 6, 2026, reasoning that a hearing after unjustified deprivation of liberty does not cure the constitutional violation. The court also noted that Section 1226(a), which ordinarily provides for bond hearings, does not apply to applicants for admission, and that an immigration judge would likely be unable to hold such a hearing under the Board of Immigration Appeals’ stated position.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) may bring as-applied due process challenges despite the Fifth Circuit’s statutory holding in Buenrostro-Mendez.
- Length of residence in the United States combined with prior release can create a liberty interest requiring individualized justification for detention, not automatic confinement.
- Deprivation of liberty without constitutionally adequate procedures violates the Fifth Amendment regardless of statutory authorization for mandatory detention.
- Immediate release is an appropriate remedy for due process violations, rather than merely ordering a delayed bond hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision represents one of several federal district courts finding constitutional infirmities in the government’s post-July 2025 detention policy. While the Fifth Circuit upheld the statutory interpretation of Section 1225 in February 2026, these cases establish that statutory authority alone does not overcome due process protections. The ruling is significant for practitioners challenging mandatory detention of noncitizens, particularly those with extended U.S. residence or prior release status, as it recognizes meaningful constitutional limits on executive immigration detention authority.
The case also highlights an emerging split in judicial interpretation: courts are increasingly skeptical that the government’s mandatory detention scheme can survive constitutional scrutiny without individualized hearings or justifications. Attorneys representing detained noncitizens may leverage this reasoning in pending habeas and due process challenges across the country.