Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01700

#1

Mar 15, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21568821), filed by Esbeli Camarillo-Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A - I-94, # 3 Exhibit B - Medical, # 4 Exhibit C - Daughter's affidavit, # 5 Exhibit D - Bond denial, # 6 Exhibit E - TPS approval, # 7 Exhibit F - Membership)(Voglewede, Yasmin) (Entered: 03/15/2026)

Mar 15, 2026

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

Mar 15, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (vl)

Mar 16, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 16, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#2

Mar 17, 2026

Order

#3

Mar 20, 2026

Order

#4

Mar 23, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#5

Mar 27, 2026

Response

#6

Apr 01, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt

#7

Jul 01, 2026

Supplemental Memorandum

#8

Jul 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and DENYING 7 Motion to Enforce the Court's Order Staying Transfer and Removal. Through the motion, Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated the stay entered in this case. There is no reason to wait for a response to the motion. The Court denies the motion because the stay does not preclude Respondents from transferring Petitioner to another facility within the Western District of Texas, as they have done in this case. Through the habeas petition, 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. 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. Not only has Petitioner established a significant presence in the United States that requires due process protection, but she had been complying with a prior release until her current detention. 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, had been complying with the terms of a prior release, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before July 4, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Esbeli Camarillo-Vega from custody to a public location, under conditions no more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioner's counsel 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. If counsel for Petitioner disagrees with any aspect of the filed Status Report, counsel may file a separate Status Report. 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.) (rw) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#9

Jul 02, 2026

Judgment

Jul 02, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Jul 02, 2026

Notice of Correction

Jul 02, 2026

Notice of Correction: ENTRY HAS BEEN EDITED TO REFLECT AS A MOTION re 7 MOTION. (mgr)

#10

Jul 06, 2026

Status Report