Martinez Diaz v. Bondi et al

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RAMIRO MARTINEZ DIAZ,
A# 078-131-840
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-6354
WARDEN RANDALL TATE, Montgomery
Processing Center, et al.
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Ramiro Martinez Diaz is detained in the custody of officials with the
United States Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) at the Montgomery Processing Center. Through counsel, the petitioner filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1).
The petitioner states that he is a native and citizen of Mexico; that he was placed
in removal proceedings in 2020 following a conviction for failure to stop and give
information; that ICE officials released him on his own recognizance and required him to
report periodically to ICE; that he appealed his removal case to the Board of Immigration
Appeals on October 22, 2024, and the case has yet to be briefed; and that ICE officials took
him into custody on December 15, 2025, when he appeared at ICE offices for a scheduled
appointment. He claims that his detention is unlawful and seeks immediate release or a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), among other relief.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06354 Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
On January 6, 2026, the Court entered an order for an expedited answer (Dkt. 4).
The Court also entered an order to show cause (Dkt. 5) why the petitioner should not
immediately be released from custody or, in the alternative, be granted a bond hearing
before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days. The federal
respondents filed a response and motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment (Dkt. 7).
The respondents oppose habeas relief and argue that the petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) because he is an “alien seeking admission”
who is “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” (id. at 4). They state that
he is subject to a final order of removal, but the order is on appeal and thus not
administratively final (id. at 2). They argue that a bond hearing is not available to the
petitioner based on the text of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and the BIA’s ruling in in In re Yajure
Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025) (id. at 1-2). They also assert that the petitioner
has not exhausted administrative remedies because he has not requested a bond hearing (id.
at 3).
Having considered the parties’ briefing and all matters of record, the Court
determines that the petitioner, who had resided in the United States continuously for over
four years when detained, is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
See Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025);
Behnam Goorakani v. Lyons, No. 25-CV-9456 2025 WL 3632896 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15,
2025); Cruz Gutierrez v. Thompson, No. 4:25-4695, 2025 WL 3187521 (S.D. Tex. Nov.
14, 2025); Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara, No. 5:25-CV-112, 2025 WL 2950097 (S.D.
Case 4:25-cv-06354 Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
Tex. Oct. 8, 2025); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. H-25-3726, 2025 WL 2886346, at
*2 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2025). The Court further determines that the exhaustion doctrine
does not bar judicial review.1
The Court therefore ORDERS that the petitioner’s petition for habeas relief (Dkt.
1) is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to provide the petitioner with a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), with all attendant burdens of proof, within seven days
of the date of this order. In the alternative, if the respondents do not provide the petitioner
with a bond hearing within seven days, the respondents are ordered to release the petitioner
from custody by the end of the seventh day.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on , 2026.
__________________________________
GEORGE C. HANKS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 See Montano v. Texas, 867 F.3d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Unlike 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
Section 2241’s text does not require exhaustion”); Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d
190, 194 (5th Cir. 2012) (exhaustion is not required where a petitioner raises a claim that agency
would clearly reject); Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 496 (S.D.N.Y. 2025)
(exhaustion is not statutorily required and was excused given that available remedies provided no
genuine opportunity for adequate relief and the petitioner raised a substantial constitutional
question); Buenrostro-Mendez, 2025 WL 2886346, at *3 (exhaustion was not statutorily required
under the circumstances and the issue of statutory interpretation belongs in the province of the
courts).
January 20
Case 4:25-cv-06354 Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3