ALMENDAREZ HERNANDEZ v. VERGARA et al

O
1 / 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
SANTOS ANDRES ALMENDAREZ
HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
V. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-00716
MIGUEL VERGARA, ET AL.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner is currently detained in federal immigration custody in Texas. Before
the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 5), and
Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 10).
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 June 30, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to notify the Court of the status
of Petitioner’s release by July 1, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras, challenges his ongoing detention without a bond
hearing. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2007. (Dkt. No. 12 at
1).1 While living in the United States, he formed a common law marriage with a U.S.
citizen and now has two U.S. citizen stepchildren. (Id.). Petitioner no criminal history
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
June 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00716 Document 13 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2 / 5
known to his counsel, and Respondents do not assert that Petitioner has criminal history.
(See Dkt. No. 12 at 1; Dkt. No. 10).
On March 9, 2026, Petitioner was detained by immigration officials and served a
Notice to Appear in immigration court. (Dkt. No. 10 at 2). Petitioner has not received a
substantive bond hearing while he’s been detained. (See Dkt. No. 12 at 2). Petitioner was
ordered removed on May 28, 2026. (Id. at 1). However, he filed a timely appeal, which
remains pending, so his removal order is not final. Automated Case Information, Exec.
Off. Immigr. Rev., https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseinformation (last visited June 28,
2026); 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1.
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
Case 5:26-cv-00716 Document 13 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3 / 5
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. In his petition, Petitioner asserts that his
detention violates his rights under the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner requests, among
other 	things, 	that 	this 	Court 	issue 	an 	order 	declaring 	his 	detention 	unlawful,
immediately releasing him from custody or providing a bond hearing, and awarding
reasonable attorney’s fees.
II. DISCUSSION
Respondents move for summary judgment, asserting that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention and that his detention does not violate due process. The Court
principally addresses Petitioner’s procedural due process claim and finds that his
detention violates due process. The Court incorporates the legal standards and analysis
applied in its prior order granting a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 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 17.2
The Court finds that the same reasoning applies to these facts. Petitioner has
resided in the United States since 2007. The Court’s reasoning in Lopez Moncebais relied
on the petitioner’s length of residence in the United States in evaluating his liberty
interest. Here, the Court finds that Petitioner’s residence in the United States since
2 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-00716 Document 13 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4 / 5
2007—for nearly two decades—creates a sufficient liberty interest to require that his
detention 	is 	safeguarded 	with 	constitutionally 	adequate 	procedures, 	including 	an
individualized determination of whether he should be detained.
For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the Court’s analysis in Lopez
Moncebais, the Court 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.3
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, (Dkt. No. 5), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Respondents’ Motion
for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 10), is DENIED.
Respondents are ORDERED to RELEASE Petitioner from custody by June 30,
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 July 1, 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 attorney’s fees,
is DENIED.
If Petitioner is re-detained, Petitioner must be afforded procedural due process as
3 A district court has equitable discretion in determining the appropriate remedy “as law and justice
require” for unlawful detention in a habeas petition. See Brown v. Davenport, 596 U.S. 118, 127–28 (2022).
The Court finds that the specific harm Petitioner suffered—unlawful deprivation of liberty without due
process—is remedied by granting his immediate release, rather than ordering a bond hearing. As explained
in Lopez Moncebais, “[t]he Court recognizes the weight of its decision to order Petitioner’s release from
custody.” No. 5:26-CV-268, slip op. at 16. Though, the Court reaches this conclusion for several reasons.
First, the Fifth Circuit has held that Section 1226(a), which provides for a bond hearing, does not apply to
any applicants for admission. Buenrostro-Mendez, 166 F.4th 494. Additionally, a hearing after Petitioner’s
unjustified deprivation of liberty does not cure the deprivation. See Bonilla Chicas, No. 5:26 CV-131, 2026
WL 539475, at *12. Finally, the Court finds that an Immigration Judge would be unlikely to hold the bond
hearing if ordered because the BIA’s position is that there is no jurisdiction to hold bond hearings for all
applicants for admission detained under Section 1225(b)(2). Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216;
see also Rojas v. Noem, No. EP-25-CV-443, 2025 WL 3038262, at *4, n.2.
Case 5:26-cv-00716 Document 13 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5 / 5
guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A final judgment will follow.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on June 29, 2026.
______________________________
John A. Kazen
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00716 Document 13 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5