Alexis Tabora v. David Hardin et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION ALEXIS TABORA, Petitioner, v. Case No.: 2:26-cv-00219-SPC-NPM DAVID HARDIN et al., Respondents, / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Alexis Tabora’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and the government’s response (Doc. 5). For the below reasons, the Court grants the petition.

Tabora is a native and citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection in 2000. He works in construction, has no criminal convictions, and has a U.S. citizen daughter. Tabora applied for asylum in 2020. In 2023, an immigration judge dismissed removal proceedings as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Miami-Dade police arrested Tabora during a traffic stop on January 21, 2026, and transferred him to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). ICE commenced a new removal proceeding on February 7, 2026, by issuing a notice to appear. Tabora remains detained at Glades County Detention Center without an opportunity to seek release on bond.

The core of the dispute before this Court is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) applies to Tabora. The distinction matters because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention, while aliens detained under § 1226(a) have the right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Tabora asks the Court to order the respondents to either release him or provide a prompt individualized bond hearing.

The respondents argue (1) 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and (b)(9) strip the Court of jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claims, (2) the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, and (3) the petitioner is properly detained under § 1225 and is not eligible for a bond hearing. As the respondents acknowledge, the Court rejected their arguments in cases that presented the same issues, like Hinojosa Garcia v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-879-SPC-NPM, 2025 WL 3041895 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2025) and Vasquez Carcamo v. Noem, 2:25-cv- 922-SPC-NPM, 2025 WL 3119263 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2025). The Court’s reasons for granting habeas relief in those cases apply equally here.

As the Court explained in Hinojosa Garcia and Vasquez Carcamo, it has jurisdiction because this action falls outside the scope of § 1252(g) and (b)(9), and exhaustion is excused because it would be futile. And like the petitioners in those cases, Tabora’s detention is governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2).

As a noncitizen detained under § 1226(a), Tabora has a right to a bond hearing.

See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (“Federal regulations provide that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention.”) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)).1 The Court will thus order the respondents to either bring Tabora before an immigration judge for an individualized bond hearing or release him within ten days. The Court is aware that the Executive Office for Immigration Review is the agency that schedules bond hearings. To be clear, subjecting Tabora to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful. If the respondents are unable to ensure Tabora receives the bond hearing he is entitled to under § 1226(a) within ten days, they must release him.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Alexis Tabora’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.

(1) Within ten days of this Opinion and Order, the respondents shall either (1) bring Tabora for an individualized bond hearing before an

1 The Court acknowledges the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25- 20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. 2026), which agreed with the government’s interpretation of the INA. The decision is not binding here, and it contradicts the vast majority of district court opinions addressing the issue. The Court respectfully disagrees with the majority’s reasoning and finds Judge Douglas’s dissent more persuasive. And a circuit split is likely. In a preliminary decision, the Seventh Circuit considered the government’s position on the scope of § 1225(b)(2) and found it unlikely to succeed on the merits. See Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060-63 (7th Cir. 2025). immigration judge or (2) release Tabora under reasonable conditions of supervision. If the respondents release Tabora, they shall facilitate his transportation from the detention facility by notifying his counsel when and where he may be collected. (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment, and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 19, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SA: FTMP-1