Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-04457

#1

Jul 13, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5 DUE), filed by Christian Marroquin-Aguirre.(r013) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

#2

Jul 13, 2026

Case Opening Letter mailed to Christian Marroquin-Aguirre. (bc) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Jul 13, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Stephenson (bc)

Jul 13, 2026

THIS CASE HAS BEEN RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JASON K. PULLIAM (bc)

Jul 16, 2026

Remark (No Doc#)

Jul 16, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

Jul 17, 2026

Text ORDER TO PAY FILING FEE OR FILE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP. Petitioner neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that on or before August 17, 2026, Petitioner must submit to this Court either the required filing fee of $5.00 or a completed application to proceed IFP. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to Petitioner this Courts standard IFP application. If Petitioner fails to comply with this Order, the Petition may be dismissed by this Court without further notice for want or prosecution and failure to comply with this Courts Order. 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: 07/17/2026)

Jul 17, 2026

Order

#4

Sep 11, 2026

Filing fee received in the amount of $5, receipt number 12877 (cih) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#5

Sep 15, 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 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.) (lc) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

Sep 15, 2026

Order

#7

Sep 21, 2026

SUPPLEMENT to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Christian Marroquin-Aguirre. (cih) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#6

Sep 22, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Letica Diaz, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Notice to Appear, # 2 Exhibit B-I-213, # 3 Exhibit C-Order, # 4 Exhibit D-Motion for Stay)(Saenz, Angelica) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

#8

Sep 23, 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. Although Petitioner was previously detained for a criminal offense, Respondents do not rely on that offense to justify detention or to oppose the habeas petition. Petitioner has no other 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 September 23, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Christian Marroquin-Aguirre from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. 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: 09/23/2026)

#10

Sep 23, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (cih) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

Sep 23, 2026

Order

#9

Sep 24, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Letica Diaz, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I-94)(Saenz, Angelica) (Entered: 09/24/2026)