Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-03164

#1

May 13, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 11399), filed by Osiris Abigail Flores Velasquez. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt)(r013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/14/2026: # 2 Cover Letter) (kc). (Entered: 05/14/2026)

May 13, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer (kc)

May 13, 2026

Case has been randomly assigned to the docket of Honorable Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (kc)

#2

May 14, 2026

Case Opening Letter mailed to Osiris Abigail Flores Velasquez. (kc) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

May 14, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

May 14, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

May 20, 2026

Text ORDER FOR SERVICE of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is ORDERED that notice of electronic filing of 1 Petition and this Order to the United States Attorney in San Antonio, Texas shall constitute service on the Federal Respondents and on all Respondents unless otherwise contested. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a response to the Petition within seven (7) days of the date of service. The Court construes the Petition as raising, at least in part, a Fifth Amendment Due Process claim which Respondents should address. See, e.g., Longoria Mendoza v. Noem, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No 5:26-CV-0728-JKP, 2026 WL 809441, at *610 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026); Bonilla Chicas v. Warden, __ F. Supp.3d __, No. 26-CV-131, 2026 WL 539475, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2026); Marceau v. Noem, No. 26-CV-237-KC, 2026 WL 368953, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2026). Additionally, the response must identify: (1) Petitioner's alleged country of birth, so that Petitioner can be located in the Online Detainee Locator System; (2) Petitioner's alleged date of entry and statutory basis for removability; (3) any previous immigration detention history, e.g., whether Petitioner has previously been subject to immigration detention and, if so, the approximate date of Petitioner's previous release into the interior; and (4) Petitioner's alleged immigration status, e.g., whether Petitioner has a pending claim for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture or is subject to a final removal order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner elects to file a reply, Petitioner may do so no later than seven days after the Respondents file their answers/responses. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ks1) (Entered: 05/20/2026)

May 20, 2026

Order

#4

May 27, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Attorney General of the United States, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Simmons, Sequetha) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#5

Jul 09, 2026

ORDER FOR OMNIBUS ADVISORY. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#6

Jul 13, 2026

ORDER VACATING re 5 Order for Omnibus Advisory. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#7

Jul 31, 2026

NOTICE of Change of Address by Osiris Abigail Flores Velasquez (mgr) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#8

Aug 19, 2026

Petitioner's Second MOTION to Compel Response, for Release under supervision pending Appeal, and for Emergency Medical Attention by Osiris Abigail Flores Velasquez. (rqr) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#9

Aug 21, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Petitioner claims that Respondents have violated procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment based on a significant presence in the United States and/or an improper revocation of release. Respondents have submitted a response in opposition. After reviewing the briefing, provided evidence, and applicable law, the Court grants the petition based on the law as set out and analyzed in Longoria Mendoza v. Noem, 823 F. Supp. 3d 636 (W.D. Tex. 2026) and numerous other cases decided by the undersigned. While there are differences between this case and Longoria Mendoza, none warrant a different result. The Court notes the en banc Fifth Circuit has stayed the district-court judgments pending rehearing in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, _ F.4th _, No. 26-50183, 2026 WL 2104747, at *1 (5th Cir. July 21, 2026) (per curiam). To the extent the Government contends that this stay prevents district courts from granting habeas relief on procedural-due-process grounds while rehearing is pending, this Court does not read the order so broadly. The Court is unaware of any Fifth Circuit decision or order holding that the stay categorically bars adjudication of, or relief on, such claims. Other courts have continued to consider due-process claims under pre-panel-decision analyses, including Perozo-Mata v. Blanche, _F. Supp. 3d _, No. 4:26-CV-05679, 2026 WL 2195373, at *3 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2026). Absent further Fifth Circuit guidance, the stay in Sosnava Rodriguez does not preclude habeas relief on Petitioners due-process claim. For reasons previously stated in Longoria Mendoza, the Court finds that (1) it has jurisdiction to consider the arguments presented in the instant habeas petition; (2) any asserted failure to exhaust administrative remedies is excused; (3) Respondents have violated Petitioner's procedural due process rights; and (4) fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 are not available in habeas corpus proceedings like this one. The Court treats the instant action solely as a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and declines to consider any claim other than the alleged violation of procedural due process. The Court has considered the arguments Respondents make in response and rejects them for reasons stated in prior cases. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court concludes Petitioner's detention is unlawful, and habeas relief is proper. Because Petitioner has no known criminal history, has established a significant presence in the United States that requires due process protection, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before August 23, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Osiris Abigail Flores Velasquez from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. If at the time of detention, Petitioner was complying with terms of release imposed through an unexpired parole or other active release, the imposed appropriate conditions of release shall be no more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioner's counsel, if any, of the exact location and exact time of release as soon as practicable and no less than two hours before release. Any possible or anticipated removal or transfer of Petitioner under this present detention is PROHIBITED. No later than the next business day after the ordered release date, Respondents shall FILE a status report to confirm whether Petitioner has been released. A written final judgment will be issued separately to summarize the orders of the Court and to close this habeas case. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lc) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#10

Aug 21, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (rqr) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

Aug 21, 2026

Order

Aug 21, 2026

Order on Motion to Compel

Aug 21, 2026

Text Order MOOTING 8 Motion to Compel entered by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lc)

#11

Aug 24, 2026

Status Report