Valladares Mata et al v. Bondi et al Case electronically transferred to Eastern District of Texas as to Petitioner Jonathan Abraham Mata .

1 / 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SHAILA VALLADARES MATA,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01459
PAMELA BOND, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
On this day, the Court heard arguments on Petitioner Shaila Valladares Mata’s Petition for
Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) and Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 7). At
the hearing, the Court GRANTED the Petition IN PART and DENIED the Motion for Summary
Judgment. Ms. Mata’s Motions for Release (ECF Nos. 5 & 8) are DENIED AS MOOT.
I. BACKGROUND
Shaila Valladares Mata is a 20-year-old citizen of Mexico.1 ECF No. 1 at ¶ 8. She entered
the United States lawfully with a B1/B2 (tourist) visa with her family in 2015 when she was only
ten years old. Id. On November 21, 2025, Ms. Mata, along with her younger brother Jonathan,
were detained by ICE after a routine traffic stop. Id. at ¶ 9. They were placed in removal
proceedings, which are ongoing. Id. at ¶ 10. Brother and sister filed a joint petition for habeas
corpus on February 23, 2026. Because Ms. Mata’s brother is detained outside the Southern District
of Texas, the Court granted Respondents’ motion to transfer his case to the Eastern District of
1 Respondents have not disputed the facts alleged in Ms. Mata’s Petition.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 28, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01459 Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2 / 6
Texas. See ECF No. 10 (Order to Transfer). Ms. Mata is detained in this district, so her case is
properly before this Court.
Ms. Mata has extensive ties to the United States and Houston specifically, where she has
lived since she was a child. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 8. Ms. Mata graduated from high school in 2023 and
briefly attended Lone Star College in 2024, until she left for financial reasons. Id.; ECF No. 1, Ex.
B. She hopes to return to college and eventually become a teacher. The bond packet which was
submitted to the IJ contained letters from more than ten of Ms. Mata’s friends and relatives,
including a former high school teacher, speaking to her good moral character, warm temperament,
and assimilation to American culture. See ECF No. 1, Ex. F. Ms. Mata’s aunt, Alma Delia Alonso,
is a U.S. citizen and was willing to act as a sponsor for Ms. Mata if she were released on bond,
including helping to assure her attendance at future immigration court proceedings. Id. She has
also filed a Form I-130 Petition for an Alien Relative on behalf of Ms. Mata’s family, which is
pending with USCIS. ECF No. 1, Ex. D.
Because Ms. Mata entered the United States lawfully, she is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). As provided for in that statute, Ms. Mata timely requested a custody redetermination
(commonly referred to as a bond hearing) before an Immigration Judge (IJ). The hearing was held
on December 22, 2025. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 11. At the hearing, DHS acknowledged Ms. Mata’s lack
of criminal history and U.S. citizen sponsor, but argued that she was a flight risk because it was
not clear what she had been doing since she left Lone Star College. See ECF No. 11, Ex. A
(Transcript). When questioned by the IJ, Ms. Mata stated: “I went to college for one semester, and
then I tried again like save money so I could still go to college and graduate, get a master’s degree
so I can become a teacher hopefully.” Id. at 6-7. The IJ denied bond on the basis that Ms. Mata
was a flight risk, adopting DHS’ reasoning. ECF No. 1, Ex. H.
Case 4:26-cv-01459 Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3 / 6
II. ANALYSIS
Ms. Mata argues that her prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) violates the due
process clause. The Court agrees.2
Section 1226(a) “is silent as to what burden of proof applies in bond hearings and who
bears that burden.” Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 26. As the First Circuit explained in Hernandez-
Lara, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) previously “interpreted that silence as creating a
presumption in favor of liberty pending removal proceedings.” Id. In the 1990s, however, the
Government adopted new regulations establishing a presumption of detention in the initial custody
determination by the arresting officer. See 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(2)-(8). Under those regulations, a
noncitizen seeking release bears the burden of “demonstrat[ing] to the satisfaction of the officer
that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the alien is likely to
appear for any future proceeding.” Id. § 236.1(c)(8). In other words, the burden is on the noncitizen
detained under section 1226(a) to prove to the immigration judge “that he or she is neither a danger
to the community nor a flight risk.” Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th 19 at 26.
At the hearing, the Court found that Petitioner’s ongoing detention under 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a) violates Ms. Mata’s due process rights under the balancing test laid out by the Supreme
Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). The Court is persuaded by the First and Second
Circuits’ reasoning in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021) and Velasco Lopez
2 Respondents argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review an IJ’s discretionary bond decision
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). But it is well settled that § 1226(e) does not preclude challenges to “the
extent of the Government's detention authority under the statutory framework as a whole.”
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 538 U.S. 281, 295 (2018); see also Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19,
33 (1st Cir. 2021) (holding that § 1226(e) did not preclude a due process challenge to prolonged
detention under § 1226(a)); Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 850-51 (2d Cir. 2020) (same).
Case 4:26-cv-01459 Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4 / 6
v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 852 (2d Cir. 2020), in which the courts held that prolonged detention
under § 1226(a) violates the due process clause under Mathews.
“[D]ue process ‘applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether
their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.’” Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at
29 (quoting Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001)). The first Mathews factor, Ms. Mata’s
liberty interest, is weighty. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 695 (“Freedom from imprisonment—from
government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty
that [the Due Process] Clause protects.”). The second Mathews factor, “the risk of an erroneous
deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of
additional or substitute procedural safeguards,” is weaker here than in cases of mandatory
detention, but still favors Ms. Mata. The risks of placing the burden on a detainee to prove that
they are not a flight risk or danger are well known. The third Mathews factor, “the Government’s
interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the
additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail,” is outweighed by the potentially
erroneous and ongoing deprivation of Ms. Mata’s liberty—especially given the high fiscal costs
of detention.
Additionally, while the Government has an interest in detaining noncitizens in removal
proceedings who pose a flight risk or danger to the community, it has no interest in detaining
noncitizens who pose no such risks. Requiring a bond hearing at which the Government bears the
burden of proof is therefore consistent with the Government’s interest. See Velasco Lopez, 978
F.3d at 857 (“The irony in this case is that, in the end, all interested parties prevailed. The
Government has prevailed because it has no interest in the continued incarceration of an individual
who it cannot show to be either a flight risk or a danger to his community. Velasco Lopez has
Case 4:26-cv-01459 Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5 / 6
prevailed because he is no longer incarcerated. And the public’s interest in seeing that individuals
who need not be jailed are not incarcerated has been vindicated.”). Ms. Mata’s case illustrates this
principle. Ms. Mata has lived in the United States since the age of ten without incident. She has no
criminal history and is by all accounts a strong student and valued member of her community. She
has numerous family members in the United States, including her U.S. citizen aunt who is willing
to act as a sponsor for her. While it is not for this Court to determine whether Ms. Mata presents a
flight risk, a hearing at which the Government bears the burden to prove this by clear and
convincing evidence will ensure that the Government is not needlessly detaining noncitizens who
are neither flight risks nor dangers to the community.
Although Ms. Mata’s detention, which has lasted over 150 days, is not yet as lengthy as
the detention at issue in Hernandez-Lara and Velasco Lopez (ten months and fifteen months,
respectively), there is every indication that her detention will continue for many months, if not
years. See Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 29 (“The exact length of detention under section 1226(a)
is impossible to predict and can be quite lengthy.”); Velasco Lopez, 978 F.3d at 852 (“Absent
release on bond, detention lasts through the initial removal determination proceedings (which
themselves can take months or years) and all inter-agency and federal court appeals, even where
an individual has prevailed and the Government appeals.”).
The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:
1. Respondents must provide Ms. Mata with another bond hearing at which the burden of
proof is on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prove, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Ms. Mata is a flight risk or danger to the community within TEN (10)
DAYS, or else release Ms. Mata.
Case 4:26-cv-01459 Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6 / 6
2. Respondents are ordered to update the Court on or before May 8, 2026, on the status of the
bond hearing and Petitioner’s custody status.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on April 27, 2026.
_______________________________
Keith P. Ellison
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-01459 Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6