Contreras-Betancourt v. Blanche et al

O
1 / 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
JUNIOR CONTRERAS-
BETANCOURT,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-00746
TODD BLANCHE, ET AL.,
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 for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 8).
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 21, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to notify the Court of the status
of Petitioner’s release by May 22, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Petitioner, a citizen of Venezuela, challenges his ongoing detention without a bond
hearing. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2021 and has
remained continuously present in the country since then. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 6).1 Shortly
after entering the United States, Petitioner was apprehended by immigration officials.
(See id.). He was subsequently released on humanitarian parole and served a Notice to
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 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00746 Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2 / 5
Appear. (Id.; Dkt. No. 8 at 2). Petitioner’s humanitarian parole expired on October 26,
2021. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7; Dkt. No. 8 at 2). Separately, Petitioner applied for and received
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from June 18, 2024, to April 2, 2025. (Dkt. No. 1-9).
After Petitioner was granted TPS, his proceedings in immigration court were dismissed
without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 8-4). Petitioner represents that he has no criminal history.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 15; see also Dkt. No. 8-3 at 2).
In February 2026, Petitioner was re-detained during an immigration enforcement
operation in Houston, Texas. (Dkt. No. 8-3 at 2). He was served a new Notice to Appear.
(Dkt. No. 8-5). Petitioner has not received a bond hearing since he’s been detained. (Dkt.
No. 1 at 8).
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-00746 Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 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 raises several claims
for relief: violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment, violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act, violation of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment,
equitable estoppel, and violation of the suspension clause. Petitioner requests, among
other 	things, 	that 	this 	Court 	issue 	an 	order 	declaring 	his 	detention 	unlawful,
immediately release him from custody, 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 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 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 these facts, though Petitioner’s
length of presence in the United States is factually distinct from Lopez Moncebais.
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-00746 Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4 / 5
Petitioner has resided in the United States since 2021. 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 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 from detention in 2021 and spent over four
years out of custody before he was re-detained. Respondents do not assert that Petitioner
violated any conditions of his release. His 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, Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
(Dkt. No. 1), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Respondents’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 8), is DENIED.
Respondents are ORDERED to RELEASE Petitioner from custody by May 21,
2026, at 5:00 p.m., under reasonable conditions of release, and to submit a status report
Case 5:26-cv-00746 Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5 / 5
to the Court confirming Petitioner's release by May 22, 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 20, 2026.
______________________________
John A. Kazen
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00746 Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5