Brown Quintanilla v. NOEM et al

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
ALEXIS BROWN QUINTANILLA,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
V. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-00129
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner is currently detained in federal custody at the Rio Grande Processing
Center in Texas. Before the Court is Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. No. 11) and Respondents’ Response
to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No.
18).
The Court finds that Petitioner’s deprivation of liberty without constitutionally
adequate procedures is a violation of his due process rights, and the failure to provide
due process warrants his release. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus is granted in part. Respondents are ordered to release Petitioner
by May 19, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to notify the Court of the status
of Petitioner’s release by May 20, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, challenges his ongoing detention without a
bond hearing. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2006 and has
remained continuously present in the country since then. (See Dkt. No. 11 at 18).1
Petitioner was apprehended by immigration officials on September 29, 2026. (See Dkt.
1 When citing to the page numbers of any document in the record, the Court will cite to the page
numbering of the Court’s internal CM/ECF docket system, and not to the page numbers in the underlying
documents.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00129 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
No. 11 at 18; Dkt. No. 18 at 2).
Petitioner is currently detained at the Rio Grande Processing Center. (Dkt. No. 11
at 2). Respondents do not allege that he has any criminal history or any other personal
circumstances that reflect an individualized determination of his flight risk or danger.
(See Dkt. No. 18 at 2).
B. Legal Background
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ)
released interim guidance in July 2025, announcing a new legal position on detention
authorities for noncitizens. The guidance interpreted the mandatory detention provision
of Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or 8 U.S.C. § 1225, as
applying to the detention of all “applicants for admission,” including all noncitizens who
have not been admitted, whether they arrive at a port of entry or enter without
inspection. This position was adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in
September 2025. Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).
In the months following the shift in policy, federal district courts across the
country found the Government’s interpretation at odds with the text of the statute and
ordered bond hearings, or release, for noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under
the policy. See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-CV-6582, 2025 WL 3295903, at *4,
n.22 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (collecting cases). In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit held
that Section 1225(b)(2) applies to all applicants for admission, regardless of whether they
are actively “seeking admission” when they are detained. Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494, 502 (5th Cir. 2026). However, Buenrostro did not address the validity of
due process claims such as those raised by Petitioner in this case. See, e.g., Bonilla Chicas
v. Warden, No. 5:26-CV-131, 2026 WL 539475, at *4–5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2026); see also
Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara, No. 5:25-CV-112, 2025 WL 2950097 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 8,
2025), overruled by Buenrostro-Mendez, 166 F.4th 494 (explaining the Court’s prior
statutory interpretation of Section 1225).
C. Procedural Background
Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, maintaining that
he is entitled to release from detention. He brings three claims for relief: violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, violation of the Administrative Procedure
Case 5:26-cv-00129 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
Act, and violation of the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner’s due process claim is that
Respondents have deprived him of his liberty interest to be free from detention without
due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner requests, among other
things, that this Court order Respondents to immediately release Petitioner during the
pendency of his removal proceedings, declare that Petitioner’s detention violates the INA,
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act,
issue a preliminary injunction ordering Respondents to release Petitioner immediately,
or, in the alternative, order Respondents to release Petitioner if he is not provided a bond
hearing, and award reasonable attorney’s fees.
II. DISCUSSION
Respondents move for summary judgment, asserting that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention pursuant to Buenrostro and that his detention does not violate
procedural or substantive due process. The Court principally addresses Petitioner’s due
process claim and finds that his detention violates due process.2 The Court incorporates
the legal standards and analysis applied in its prior order granting a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus under substantially similar facts. Lopez Moncebais v. Bondi, No. 5:26-
CV-268, slip op. (S.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2026).
There, this Court found that Buenrostro does not foreclose due process challenges
to mandatory detention, a noncitizen subject to mandatory detention may bring an as-
applied due process challenge to 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2), Supreme Court precedent
does not foreclose that type of challenge, and liberty interests in freedom from detention
must be protected by due process of law, including individualized justification for civil
detention. See id. The Court then applied the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge
and found that the petitioner’s procedural due process rights had been violated. Id. at 13
(citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)). The Court ordered immediate
release for the due process violation. Id. at 17.3
The Court finds that the same reasoning applies to the facts in this case. For this
reason and the reasons discussed in the Court’s analysis in Lopez Moncebais, the Court
2 Because the Court grants Petitioner’s requested relief without consideration of his other claims,
the Court will decline to address the merits of those claims.
3 The Court also denied attorney’s fees under the EAJA and incorporates that analysis here as well.
Lopez Moncebais, No. 5:26-CV-268, slip op. at 17.
Case 5:26-cv-00129 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
finds that Petitioner’s detention violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, he is entitled to relief, and the appropriate remedy is to order
Petitioner’s immediate release from custody.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. No. 11), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Respondents’ Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 18), is DENIED.
Respondents are ORDERED to RELEASE Petitioner from custody by May 19,
2026, at 5:00 p.m., under reasonable conditions of release, and to submit a status report
to the Court confirming Petitioner's release by May 20, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Respondents
must notify Petitioner’s counsel of the exact time and location of Petitioner's release no
less than two hours prior to Petitioner’s release from custody. Respondents are ordered
to return Petitioner’s identity documents and personal effects upon his release.
All other relief requested by Petitioner, including his request for recovery of
attorney’s fees, is DENIED.
If Petitioner is re-detained, Petitioner must be afforded procedural due process as
guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A final judgment will follow.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on May 18, 2026.
______________________________
John A. Kazen
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00129 Document 20 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4