Cobarrubias Lopez v. Warden et al

1 / 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
DIANA COBARRUBIAS-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-00215
LAREDO DETENTION CENTER, et
al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner is currently detained in federal custody. Before the Court is Petitioner’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. No. 1).
Respondents have not replied to the Court’s order for a response or its order to show
cause, (Dkt. Nos. 4, 7), so the petition is considered unopposed, as explained below.
The Court finds that Petitioner’s deprivation of liberty without constitutionally
adequate procedures is a violation of her due process rights, and the failure to provide
due process warrants her 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 5, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to notify the Court of the status
of Petitioner’s release by June 8, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, challenges her ongoing detention without a bond
hearing. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2009 and has
remained continuously present in the country since then. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 10).1
Petitioner was arrested on January 9, 2026, at a Border Patrol Checkpoint in Falfurrias,
Texas. (Id.). Documents provided by Petitioner show that the U.S. Department of
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 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00215 Document 9 Filed 06/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2 / 5
Homeland Security (DHS) served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear on January 10, 2026.
(Dkt. No. 1-2 at 8).
Petitioner is currently detained at the Laredo Detention Center. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6).
Petitioner alleges that she has never been arrested or convicted of a criminal offense in
the United States. (Id. 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
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
she is entitled to release from detention. She brings two claims for relief: violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act and Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Case 5:26-cv-00215 Document 9 Filed 06/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3 / 5
Amendment. Petitioner’s due process claim is that Respondents have deprived her of her
liberty interest to be free from detention without due process of law in violation of the
Fifth Amendment. She argues that she has a strong liberty interest because she has
resided in the United States for seventeen years, completed her secondary education, and
has developed strong community ties in the United States. Further, she is married to a
United States citizen. Petitioner requests, among other things, that this Court grant her
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, order Respondents to release Petitioner, and award
reasonable attorney’s fees.
The Court reviewed the petition and ordered Respondents to file a response. (Dkt.
No. 4). Respondents did not respond by the deadline, so the Court entered an order to
show cause for the failure to respond, (Dkt. No. 7). These orders were served on the
United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas in accordance with the
relevant Memorandum of Understanding for Section 2241 cases. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 7). No
response to either of the Court’s Orders has been filed.
II. DISCUSSION
Because Respondents failed to respond to the petition, the Court will consider it
unopposed. The Court finds that the petition can be resolved on its merits under Section
2241. In assessing the merits of the petition, the Court finds that it should be granted in
part. The Court principally addresses Petitioner’s due process claim and finds that her
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 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
2 Because the Court grants Petitioner’s requested relief without consideration of her other claims,
the Court will decline to address the merits of those claims.
Case 5:26-cv-00215 Document 9 Filed 06/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4 / 5
(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 these facts. For this reason
and the reasons discussed in the Court’s analysis in Lopez Moncebais, the Court finds
that Petitioner’s detention violates her 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.4
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. No. 1), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Respondents are ORDERED to RELEASE Petitioner from custody by June 5,
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 June 8, 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 her release.
All other relief requested by Petitioner, including her request for recovery of
attorney’s fees, is DENIED.
If Petitioner is re-detained, Petitioner must be afforded procedural due process as
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.
4 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 her 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 17. 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-00215 Document 9 Filed 06/04/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5 / 5
guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send this Order by electronic mail to
USATXS.CivilNotice@usdoj.gov.
A final judgment will follow.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on June 4, 2026.
______________________________
John A. Kazen
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00215 Document 9 Filed 06/04/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5