Rodriguez-Lopez v. Warden Webb County Detention Center et al

O
1 / 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
ADAN RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-00529
WARDEN, WEBB COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER, ET AL.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner is currently detained in federal custody at the Webb County Detention
Center in Texas. Before the Court is Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas and
Complaint for Declaratory Injunctive Relief, (Dkt. No. 1), and Respondents’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 6).
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 July 2, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to notify the Court of the status
of Petitioner’s release by July 3, 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 December 2021 and
has remained continuously present in the country since then. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 2; Dkt.
No. 6 at 2).1 Shortly after entering the United States, Petitioner was apprehended by
immigration officials. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 2). He was subsequently released on his own
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
July 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00529 Document 11 Filed 07/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2 / 5
recognizance. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7; Dkt. No. 6 at 2). Respondents have not alleged that
Petitioner has any criminal history. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 2). Petitioner was re-detained by
ICE on June 20, 2025, and served a Notice to Appear. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 6 at 2;
Dkt. No. 6-1 at 1).
On December 9, 2025, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner’s removal to Cuba
from the United States and denied his applications for Asylum, Withholding of Removal
under INA 241 (b)(3), and Withholding of Removal under Conventions of Torture. (Dkt.
No. 1-4 at 2). Petitioner appealed his order of removal, which remains pending before the
Board of Immigration appeals. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 7; Dkt. No. 6 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
Case 5:26-cv-00529 Document 11 Filed 07/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3 / 5
statutory interpretation of Section 1225).
C. Procedural Background
Petitioner raises the following claims for relief: Unlawful Detention in Violation
of Due Process. (Dkt. No. 1 at 10). Petitioner argues that he has a strong liberty interest
because he has resided in the United States for five years and has established a life and
community ties in the United States, living and working while his asylum application
and his adjustment of status under the Cuba Adjustment act was pending. (Dkt. No. 1 at
7). Petitioner requests, among other things, that this Court issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus
declaring that Petitioner’s continued detention is unlawful, 	grant Petitioner a Writ of
Habeas Corpus and order Respondents to immediately release Petitioner or provide a
constitutionally adequate hearing before a neutral adjudicator, and grant any other relief
that the Court deems just and proper. (Id. at 13).
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 due
process. The Court principally addresses Petitioner’s 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.
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 2021. The Court’s reasoning in Lopez
Case 5:26-cv-00529 Document 11 Filed 07/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4 / 5
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 2021 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.
Additionally, the Court has previously found that a prior release like Petitioner’s
strengthens the liberty interest of a noncitizen because their release created an
expectation that they would be free from detention during the pendency of their removal
proceedings. Bonilla Barrios v. Noem, No. 5:26-cv-172, slip op. at 4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2,
2026). As the Court explained there, liberty interests “may arise from an expectation or
interest created by state laws of policies.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005).
In this case, Petitioner had an expectation, in addition to his residence since 2021, that
he would be free from detention or at least entitled to seek bond while his removal
proceedings were pending. He was released on his own recognizance in December 2021
and spent four years out of custody working and building strong community ties in Texas
before he was re-detained in June 2025. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7). Respondents do not assert that
Petitioner violated any conditions of his release. (See Dkt. No. 6). That expectation
interest strengthens his liberty interest. The Court also notes that several cases analyzed
for their persuasive authority in Lopez Moncebais similarly considered prior release as a
factor strengthening the liberty interest of noncitizens detained under Section 1225(b)(2)
without a bond hearing. See Lopez Moncebais, No. 5:26-CV-268, slip op. at 7 n.6
(collecting cases).
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, Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas and Complaint for
Declaratory Injunctive Relief, (Dkt. No. 1), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED.
Respondents are ORDERED to RELEASE Petitioner from custody by July 2,
Case 5:26-cv-00529 Document 11 Filed 07/01/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5 / 5
2026, at 5:00 p.m., under his prior conditions of release, and to submit a status report to
the Court confirming Petitioner's release by July 3, 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 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 July 1, 2026.
______________________________
John A. Kazen
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00529 Document 11 Filed 07/01/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5