Filed Date: July 8, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a habeas action filed by a Mexican citizen who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers after living in the United States for twenty four years. This case is one of many challenges concerning the scope of the government’s authority to detain noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings.
Petitioner, a Mexican citizen who had been living in the United States for twenty four years, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on July 8,2025, seeking discretionary release on bond during removal proceedings. Petitioner has been living in the United States since 2001, and has significant family ties in the United States as well as U.S. citizen children. In May, 2025, ICE officials apprehended the petitioner while executing a search warrant at a construction site in Florida. The Petitioner filed this petition after being detained for several months, and argued that the the Immigration Judge should have found that he was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (INA § 236(a)) because he was already present in the United States when he was detained, making him eligible to be released on bond, and that the judge should have considered whether he was a flight risk or a danger to the community when determining his eligibility for release. Instead, the immigration judge found that he was properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which allows detention without a bond hearing. The petitioner contended that these failures violated his 5th Amendment Due Process rights. The petitioner requested declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy his unlawful detention without a bond hearing.
On August 25, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s complaint, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claims and that he had not exhausted his remedies.
The petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on September 26, 2025, which requested largely the same relief that he requested in his original petition.
On October 3, 2026, the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court first found that none of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider whether the petitioner’s continued detention is unconstitutional. Next, the court found that there is no statutory requirement that the petitioner exhaust his remedies before the court hears his claims, and further noted that numerous courts have found that exhaustion would be futile or should be excused because the average wait time to be heard in similar cases is more than six months. Finally, the court found that the petitioner did sufficiently state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
After a motions hearing on October 8, 2025, the court granted the petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court found that Section 1226, not Section 1225, applies to Padron’s detention. The court noted that “as almost every district court, including another court in the Southern District of Texas, has concluded, “the statutory text, the statute’s history, Congressional intent, and § 1226(a)’s application for the past three decades” support application of Section 1226.” Because of this, the court ordered that the defendants release the petitioner unless he was provided with a bond hearing by October 17, 2025. The court additionally denied the petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as moot.
On October 23, 2025, the district court issued a final judgment and terminated the case. Because the petitioner was afforded a bond hearing pursuant to the court’s October 8 order, and was released after paying his bond, there were no longer live claims before the court.
On October 24, 2025, the defendants appealed the court’s decision to grant the habeas petition and the court’s final judgment to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On November 10, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate this appeal with another appeal of a similar habeas corpus proceeding that raised the same issues, Buenrostro Mendez v. Bondi, 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.
The defendants challenged the court’s decision not to extradite the appeal on December 3, 2025 through a motion for reconsideration of the decision. The court denied the motion for reconsideration 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 that were already present in the United States 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 ignores decades of legal precedent and erroneously applies 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. 2026 WL 323330
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sofia Yoder (2/22/2026)
Buenrostro Mendez v. Bondi, Southern District of Texas (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70731053/parties/padron-covarrubias-v-vergara/
Kazen, John A. (Texas)
Ramirez, Hector Carlos (Texas)
Ahmed, Nora (Texas)
O'Connor, Stephen Joseph (Texas)
Perry, Charles Andrew (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70731053/padron-covarrubias-v-vergara/
Last updated March 4, 2026, 12:14 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 8, 2025
Closing Date: Oct. 23, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Mexican citizen that has lived in the United States for over 24 years.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Juan S. Diaz
Kristi Noem
MIGUEL VERGARA
Pamela Bondi
Defendant Type(s):
Facility 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 5:25-cv-00112
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 25-40701
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: