Cardenas v. Judith C. Almodovar

Background

Lilian Patricia Guzman Cardenas, a Honduran national, had lived in the United States for more than two decades after entering the country illegally. An immigration judge ordered her removed in November 2005. In 2016, her father, then a lawful permanent resident and later a citizen, filed a petition on her behalf. The government agreed to reopen and voluntarily dismiss her earlier removal proceedings without prejudice so that she could seek a waiver of inadmissibility. If granted, the waiver would allow her to leave the United States temporarily for a consular interview in Honduras and return on a visa.

More than two weeks before the opinion, Guzman Cardenas attended a scheduled appointment with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She was taken into custody without warning or explanation, served with a new notice charging her with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and detained. She was first detained in the Southern District of New York and later in Louisiana. She filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asking the federal court to review the legality of her detention.

Detention authority

The principal issue was whether Guzman Cardenas’s detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) is generally mandatory. Detention under Section 1226(a) is discretionary and provides an opportunity for an initial release determination and a bond hearing.

The respondents argued that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applied. Judge Furman rejected that argument and held that Section 1226(a) governed Guzman Cardenas’s detention. The court relied on the text and structure of the immigration laws, amendments to Section 1226, the government’s prior understanding of the statutory scheme, and the weight of decisions from other district courts. The court also noted that Guzman Cardenas’s notices to appear and her earlier release on her own recognizance had treated her as subject to Section 1226 rather than Section 1225.

Exhaustion and due process

The respondents alternatively argued that Guzman Cardenas should first pursue administrative remedies through a bond hearing before seeking relief in federal court. The court rejected that argument because her claim was that the government violated due process by changing her custody status without exercising discretion or providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court concluded that a later bond hearing would not adequately remedy that alleged violation.

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects people, including noncitizens, from deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The court found that Guzman Cardenas received neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard about why her custody status had changed. The respondents did not identify a factual basis for deciding that she should no longer remain at liberty on her own recognizance, such as flight risk or danger to the community. The record also did not show who made the detention decision, when it was made, why it was made, whether circumstances had materially changed, or whether a new policy had triggered it.

Ruling and other orders

The court held that the detention violated due process and stated that release was the appropriate remedy. Guzman Cardenas’s petition was GRANTED. The respondents were ordered to release her immediately and certify compliance by 5:00 p.m. on November 19, 2025.

The court also criticized respondents’ counsel for failing to acknowledge cases that rejected the government’s position, calling the omission an apparent failure to comply with the duty of candor to the court. Counsel was ordered to share the opinion with the Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office and confirm that this had been done by November 19, 2025.

Guzman Cardenas’s motion to transfer her back to the Southern District of New York was DENIED as moot. The clerk was directed to terminate that motion and close the case.