Serrato-Diaz v. Vergara et al

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
YADIRA SERRATO DIAZ,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
V. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-00855
MIGUEL VERGARA, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner is currently detained in federal custody at the Laredo Processing 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 Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus 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 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 30, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to notify the Court of the status
of Petitioner’s release by July 1, 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 2012 and has
remained continuously present in the country since then. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 5).1 Petitioner
was apprehended by immigration officials on March 22, 2026. (See Dkt. No. 6-1 at 3). She
was served a Notice to Appear. (Dkt. No. 6-1). Respondents do not allege that Petitioner
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 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00855 Document 7 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
has any criminal history. (See Dkt. No. 6 at 2). Petitioner was ordered removed by an
Immigration Judge on April 10, 2026. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 6-3). Petitioner filed a
timely appeal of her removal order, which remains pending before the Board of
Immigration Appeals. (Dkt. No. 1 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
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 one claims for relief: violation of the
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner’s due process
claim is that Respondents have deprived her of her liberty interest to be free from
Case 5:26-cv-00855 Document 7 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
detention without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner
argues that she has a strong liberty interest because she has resided in the United States
for fourteen years. Petitioner has family ties in the United States, including citizen
relatives and her former spouse who is also a United States citizen. She has also
maintained employment as a restaurant server since 2017. Petitioner requests, among
other things, that the Court declare that her prolonged detention during the pendency of
her administrative appeal violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, issue
a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to release her immediately, 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 her detention does not violate
procedural or substantive due process. 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 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 resided in the United States for fourteen years. In the time that Petitioner
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.
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-00855 Document 7 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
has been present, she has maintained employment and a clean criminal record. 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, she 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.
Respondents’ 	Response 	to 	Petitioner’s 	Petition 	for 	Writ 	of 	Habeas 	Corpus 	and
Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 6), is DENIED.
Respondents are ORDERED to RELEASE Petitioner from custody by June 30,
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 July 1, 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
guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A final judgment will follow.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on June 29, 2026.
______________________________
John A. Kazen
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00855 Document 7 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4