IGNACIO MENDEZ BAUTISTA
v.
SECRETARY KRISTI NOEM, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is entitled to a bond hearing, not immediate release.
[1] An alien who has been continuously present in the United States is governed by the discretionary detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. …
[2] An alien detained under 8 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[Sections] 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded.”
Establishes that § 1225 requires mandatory detention during removal proceedings for certain categories of aliens.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner, who entered the US illegally in 1994 and has resided here for over thirty years, was arrested by ICE and is being detained. He claims his …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice To Appear cases and more on FLexlaw
Bautista illegally entered the United States in 1994. (Doc. 1 ¶ 13.) He has "continuously resided in this country for more than thirty years." (Id.) Two
months ago, ICE agents arrested Bautista and determined that he was in the United States illegally. (Doc. 12 at 3; Doc. 12-1.) After processing, he landed at Alligator Alcatraz in the Middle District of Florida. (Doc. 12.)
ICE is holding Bautista under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. (Id. ¶ 27.) This matters because aliens detained through § 1225(b)(2) must remain in custody throughout their removal proceedings. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (“[Sections] 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded."). He is now in removal proceedings and being held under a “Notice to Appear” that charges him with unlawfully entering the United States. (Doc. 12-1.)
The heart of this case is a question of statutory interpretation involving the interplay between 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226. According to Bautista, the Attorney General is unlawfully holding him under § 1225(b)(2), which mandates his detention, instead of under § 1226(a)'s discretionary detention scheme, where he could be eligible for release. As a result, his continued detention without a bond hearing is unconstitutional. (Doc. 1 ¶ 41.)
As the Government concedes, the Court has already covered this ground and addressed the issues raised by Bautista. See Hernandez-Lopez v. Hardin, et al., No. 2:25-CV-830-KCD-NPM, 2025 WL 3022245 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2025); Garcia v. Noem, No. 2:25-CV-00879-SPC-NPM, 2025 WL 3041895, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2025). There, the Court was satisfied of its jurisdiction and found
2
that petitioners were being held in violation of their rights under the INA, entitling them to habeas relief. The same result applies here. It is undisputed that Bautista has been in the United States since at least 1994. His detention is thus governed by § 1226. And as a noncitizen detained under § 1226, Bautista is entitled to a bond hearing. See Jennings, 583 U.S. at 306 (“Federal regulations provide that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention.").
Bautista seeks a writ of habeas corpus “ordering [his] immediate release from immigration custody.” (Doc. 1 at 14.) But that is not something the Court can do. "[Section] 1226(a)(1) grants the executive branch discretion to determine whether to detain or release a noncitizen who is facing removal proceedings.” Hulke v. Schmidt, 572 F. Supp. 3d 593, 596 (E.D. Wis. 2021). Bautista is an alien without lawful status. So he is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a), not immediate release. See, e.g., Lopez-Arevelo, No. EP-25-CV- 337-KC, 2025 WL 2691828, at *12 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2025). Consistent with the "comfortable majority position," the Court will instead require Respondents to provide Bautista with the statutory process required under § 1226(a), which includes a bond hearing. Id.
One last issue. Bautista's petition also challenges his detention under the Fifth Amendment. This claim is not addressed “given that the Court [is granting] the relief [Bautista is entitled to] based on its interpretation of the
3
applicability of § 1226(a).” Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft, No. 25-cv-12546, 2025 WL 2609425, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2025). If Respondents do not provide Bautista with a bond hearing as ordered or if he remains detained, he can renew his Fifth Amendment claim in a subsequent complaint.
For the reasons given, Bautista's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court orders Respondents to provide Bautista with the statutory process required under § 1226, which includes a bond hearing. All other relief is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and close the case.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 19, 2025.
Kyle C. Dudek United States District Judge
4
[fn 1]: Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.