Alvarez Labrada v. Warden of Webb County Detention Center et al

1 / 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
YUNIESQUIY ALVAREZ LABRADA,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-00138
WARDEN, WEBB COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER, ET AL.,1
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner is currently detained in federal immigration custody in Texas. Before
the Court is Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Dkt. No. 1), and
Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, 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 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 Cuba, challenges his ongoing detention without a bond
hearing. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2020 and has
remained continuously present in the country since then. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 6).2 Petitioner
1 Todd Blanche is automatically substituted for Pamela Bondi in this case under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 25(d). Markwayne Mullin is automatically substituted for Kristi Noem in this case under
the same rule. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to substitute these parties on the docket sheet.
2 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-00138 Document 17 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2 / 5
originally attempted to enter the United States and request asylum in 2019 at a port of
entry. (Id.; Dkt. No. 10 at 2). At that time, he was served a Notice to Appear, charging
him as removeable, and he was returned to Mexico under 42 U.S.C. § 265 to wait in
Mexico while his immigration case was pending. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6; Dkt. No. 10 at 2). After
being returned to Mexico in 2019, Petitioner entered the United States without
inspection in August 2020. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6; Dkt. No. 10 at 2). As such, his most recent
and controlling entry is his entry without inspection in 2020. While living in the United
States, Petitioner has lived in Florida with his family and has no criminal history. (Dkt.
No. 1 at 11).
On December 16, 2025, Petitioner appeared for a hearing at an immigration court
in Texas, which he traveled to from his home in Florida. (Id. at 1). At that hearing, the
Immigration Judge granted his request to continue his removal proceedings in Miami,
Florida. (Dkt. No. 10-2 at 3). While Petitioner was on his return trip to Florida, he passed
through a border patrol checkpoint. (Id.). Petitioner was then taken into custody and has
remained detained since then. (See Dkt. No. 10-2 at 3). Petitioner has not received a bond
hearing since he’s been detained because the IJ denied jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1 at 11).
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
Case 5:26-cv-00138 Document 17 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3 / 5
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. In his petition, Petitioner asserts several claims:
violation of substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment
Due Process Clause, violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act under 8 U.S.C.
Section 1226, and request for relief under the Maldonado Bautista class action. With
respect to his procedural due process, he specifically argues that he has an interest in
liberty that must be protected by due process of law. Petitioner requests, among other
things, that this Court issue an order declaring his detention unconstitutional, ordering
Respondents to immediately release him from custody or provide a bond hearing, and
award reasonable attorney’s fees.
II. DISCUSSION
Respondents move to dismiss, or alternatively for summary judgment, asserting
that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to Buenrostro and that his
detention does not violate due process. The Court principally addresses Petitioner’s due
process claim and finds that his detention violates due process.3 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-
3 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.
Case 5:26-cv-00138 Document 17 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4 / 5
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 17.4
The Court finds that the same reasoning applies to these facts, though Petitioner’s
length of presence in the United States is factually distinct from Lopez Moncebais.
Petitioner has resided in the United States since 2020. 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 2020 still 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.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
(Dkt. No. 1), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 10), 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
4 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-00138 Document 17 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5 / 5
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-00138 Document 17 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5