Case: Buenrostro Mendez v. Bondi
4:25-cv-03726 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Filed Date: Aug. 8, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a habeas action filed by a Mexican citizen who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers after living in the U.S. for over a decade. This is one of several lawsuits in which a federal court of appeals has addressed whether the mandatory detention (without bond) provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens present in the United States.
On August 8, 2025, the petitioner, a Mexican citizen, filed this habeas corpus proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The petitioner had been living in the country for over a decade when he was turned over to ICE custody in July 2025. After being detained, an immigration judge found that she had no jurisdiction to release him on bond. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner argued that the defendants, including the U.S. and the Houston Contract Detention Facility, violated his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Specifically, petitioner argued that his detention should be governed by 8 U.S.C § 1226, the “discretionary detention statute,” because he was already present in the country. This section states that a noncitizen subject to detention is entitled to procedural protections that are not afforded under the mandatory detention statute, such as the right to a bond re-determination hearing in front of an immigration judge and a right to appeal any custody determination. Thus, the petitioner argued that the Immigration Judge’s finding that the petitioner was subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, the mandatory detention statute, was a violation of his rights and that the mandatory detention statute only applies to detentions of noncitizens attempting new entry at the border. In his habeas corpus petition, the petitioner sought either release from custody or an order that the respondents conduct a bond hearing within a reasonable time.
On September 12, 2025, the defendants filed a response to the petition, seeking dismissal, or alternatively summary judgment. They argued that (1) the court does not have jurisdiction over the petitioner’s action because he has not exhausted his administrative remedies; and (2) because he is lawfully detained under § 1225, he is not entitled to a bond hearing at all.
On October 1, 2025, the petitioner filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction, asking for largely the same relief he asked for in his habeas petition.
The District Court granted the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus and denied the request for a TRO as moot on October 7, 2025. In its memorandum and order, the court first concluded that petitioner’s exhaustion of administrative remedies was not a statutory requirement in these circumstances. Then, turning to the merits, the court concluded that § 1226, not § 1225, applied to the petitioner’s detention based on the statutory text, the statute’s history, Congressional intent, and § 1226(a)’s application for the past three decades. The court pointed to the fact that every district court that addressed this statutory question had concluded that the government’s position was contrary to the text of the INA, canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency action. Consequently, the court ordered the defendants to provide the petitioner with a bond hearing by October 21, 2025, or release him.
On October 24, 2025, the parties filed a status report in the District Court, which reported that on October 16, 2025, a new custody determination hearing was held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and the immigration judge issued an order granting the petitioner a bond. On October 22, 2025, the petitioner posted the bond and was released from ICE custody.
On December 16, 2025, the District Court entered final judgment and terminated the case, given that after the petitioner’s release no live claims remained before the court.
On the same day, they filed the status report with the District Court. On October 24, 2025, the defendants appealed the court’s decision to grant petitioner’s relief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On November 7, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate this appeal with another appeal of a habeas corpus proceeding, which involved the same issues, Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara, and filed a motion to expedite the appeal.
The court denied the motion to expedite the appeal, but granted the motion to consolidate the two cases for briefing and oral argument purposes on November 19, 2025.
On December 3, 2025, the defendants challenged the court’s decision not to expedite the appeal by moving for reconsideration. The court denied the motion on December 15, 2025.
On December 31, 2025, the defendants filed another motion to expedite the appeal. The appellate court granted the defendants’ motion on January 9, 2026, and issued an expedited briefing schedule.
On February 3, 2026, the appellate court heard oral arguments on the parties’ positions.
Following oral arguments, on February 6, 2026, the appellate court reversed the district court’s finding and concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1225, the mandatory detention statute, applies to all “unadmitted aliens,” including undocumented individuals who were already present in the U.S. at the time of their detention. In its memorandum and order, the court examined the interplay between 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which requires detention for "applicants for admission," and § 1226, which allows for discretionary release on bond. While the petitioners argued that long-term residents are not "seeking admission" and thus deserve bond eligibility, the court's majority concluded that all unadmitted aliens fall under the mandatory detention framework. Consequently, the court reversed lower court rulings that had granted bond hearings, effectively narrowing the legal avenues for release during removal proceedings. The dissenting opinion sharply criticized this move, arguing that it ignored decades of legal precedent and erroneously applied border-entry rules to the interior of the country. The court ultimately reversed the orders of the two district courts and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s decision. 166 F.4th 494.
On March 23, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing en banc in the Fifth Circuit, which was denied on April 9.
As of August 19, 2026, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sofia Yoder (2/22/2026)
Maddy Ligon (4/11/2026)
Related Cases
Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara, Southern District of Texas (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71066630/parties/buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi/
Ahmed, Nora (Texas)
Attorney, Jenny Ma, (Texas)
Blair, Danya Wayland (Texas)
Cassler, Rebecca (Texas)
Esq., Sarah Telo (Texas)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71066630/buenrostro-mendez-v-bondi/
Last updated Aug. 25, 2026, 3:33 a.m.
Docket for: Buenrostro Mendez v. Bondi
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 8, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Mexican citizen who had been living in the United States for over a decade.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Kristi Noem
Matthew W. Baker,
Pamela Bondi
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Texas 4:25-cv-03726
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 25-20496
Southern District of Texas 5:25-cv-00112
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Case Summary of Buenrostro Mendez v. Bondi, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47800/ (last updated 4/11/2026).