From Federal Filing to Freedom in Nine Days: Texas Court Orders Release of Detained Asylum Seeker
By Muhammed Gulen, Esq. | GH Law Firm, P.C. | Immigrant Lawyer
In January 2026, a federal habeas corpus case in Texas ended with the release of an immigrant held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody while his asylum case was pending. The petition was filed on January 13; he was released on January 22.
Attorney Muhammed Gulen of GH Law Firm, P.C. represented the detainee in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The client is not identified here to protect confidentiality.
An Asylum Case Followed by Detention
According to the court filings, the client entered the United States in 2023 and was placed in removal proceedings. He applied for asylum with the immigration court in March 2024. That application was still pending when ICE detained him in November 2025 and held him at the Karnes County Immigration Processing Center.
The client had no criminal history. His petition argued that his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits discretionary detention and allows a detainee to ask an immigration judge for release on bond. The government disagreed, and that disagreement became the central issue.
The Dispute Over Sections 1225 and 1226
In July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a policy treating many people who entered without admission or parole as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) rather than § 1226(a), making them ineligible for a bond hearing. The Board of Immigration Appeals endorsed that view in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, holding that immigration judges lack authority to grant bond to noncitizens present without admission.
The habeas petition challenged that interpretation. It argued that § 1225 traditionally concerns people seeking admission at or near the point of inspection, while § 1226 governs most noncitizens already living in the United States. It asked for release or, alternatively, a constitutionally adequate bond hearing.
Emergency Federal Court Intervention
Counsel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
The court ordered an expedited response and barred any removal or transfer of the detainee outside the judicial district while the case was pending.
In its response, the government maintained that the detainee was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225 and preserved its reliance on Yajure Hurtado. But it also acknowledged that the case did not materially differ from several earlier Western District of Texas decisions on the same issue, and that applying the court’s prior reasoning would likely produce the same result.
The Court Finds the Detention Unlawful
On January 21, 2026, the court granted the petition. Treating the case solely as a § 2241 habeas proceeding, it held that the petitioner could not lawfully be detained under § 1225(b) and found his detention unlawful.
The court ordered release under appropriate conditions by January 23, required the government to give counsel at least two hours’ notice of the time and place of release, and prohibited transfer in the meantime. If the client were later re-detained under § 1226, the court directed that he receive the required procedures, including a bond hearing. The government reported that he was released on January 22, one day before the deadline.
What Habeas Can and Cannot Do
For the client, the ruling meant leaving detention while his asylum case continued. But a habeas win addresses only unlawful custody; it does not decide the underlying asylum or removal case.
The legal landscape has since shifted. On February 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, adopted the government’s reading of § 1225 in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi. Most other federal appeals courts have reached the opposite conclusion, and on October 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide the question in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha. People detained in Texas today face a different legal framework than this client did in January, and anyone affected should seek individualized advice.
Every case is different, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This article is general information, not legal advice.
About the Author
Muhammed Gulen, Esq. is a New York-licensed attorney with GH Law Firm, P.C. (Immigrant Lawyer), practicing immigration law and federal immigration litigation. He represented the petitioner in this Western District of Texas matter. Learn more at www.theghlaw.com.
