GARCIA SURIANO v. MULLIN et al

O
1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
JHONNY GARCIA SURIANO,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
V. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-00813
WARDEN, RIO GRANDE
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner is currently detained in federal custody at the Rio Grande Detention
Center in Texas. Before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. No. 1), and Federal Respondents’ Response to
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and 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 June 25, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to notify the Court of the status
of Petitioner’s release by June 26, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, challenges his ongoing detention without a bond
hearing. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2000 and has
remained continuously present in the country since then. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 5).1 Petitioner
was apprehended by immigration officials on April 7, 2026. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 5; Dkt. No.
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 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00813 Document 8 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
6 at 2). Respondents do not allege that Petitioner has any criminal history (See Dkt. No.
6 at 1–2).
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
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. He brings three claims for relief: violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, violation of the Administrative Procedure
Act, and violation of the Suspension Clause. Petitioner also preserves his argument that
his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. Petitioner’s due process
Case 5:26-cv-00813 Document 8 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
claim is that Respondents have deprived him of his liberty interest to be free from
detention without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner
argues that he has a strong liberty interest because he has resided in the United States
for twenty-six years and has established a life and community ties in the United States.
Petitioner requests, among other things, that this Court declare that Petitioner’s
continued detention violates the Constitution and law of the United States, grant the
Petition, and order Petitioner’s immediate release from ICE 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
procedural or substantive 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 substantially 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 the facts in this case. Here,
Petitioner has been present in the United States since January 15, 2000. He has been
present in the country for more than twenty-six years, and, in the time he has been
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-00813 Document 8 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
present, he has maintained a clean criminal record, outside of minor traffic citations.
Additionally, he is the father of children who are United States citizens. For this reason
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 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. No. 1), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Federal Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and
Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED.
Respondents are ORDERED to RELEASE Petitioner from custody by June 25,
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 26, 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 June 24, 2026.
______________________________
John A. Kazen
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00813 Document 8 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4