Texas Tribune.
Las demandas que impugnan la detención de inmigrantes han inundado recientemente los tribunales federales de Texas, que tiene el mayor número de inmigrantes detenidos del país .
Son parte de una ola nacional de peticiones de hábeas corpus que los abogados han lanzado en los últimos meses para contrarrestar los esfuerzos de la administración Trump de mantener a los migrantes encerrados y empujarlos hacia la deportación.
Y en algunos casos, los abogados han hecho referencia a la Ley Laken Riley, el primer proyecto de ley que el presidente Donald Trump convirtió en ley este año y que requiere la detención de inmigrantes indocumentados acusados de cometer incluso delitos menores, para ayudar a argumentar a favor de la liberación de sus clientes.
Este cambio en la estrategia legal es una respuesta a la intensificación de la aplicación de las leyes migratorias por parte del gobierno federal en el interior del país (que siguió a las promesas de Trump de deportaciones masivas durante su campaña presidencial) y a su directiva de julio de ampliar la detención obligatoria.
A mediados de noviembre, más de 65,100 personas se encontraban detenidas por ICE en todo el país. Las instalaciones de Texas albergaban a más del 25% de ellas.
Por lo general, los inmigrantes detenidos que buscan ser liberados de la custodia de ICE solicitan audiencias de fianza en tribunales de inmigración, que dependen del Departamento de Justicia y están separados de los tribunales estatales y federales.
Pero en julio, el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) reinterpretó la ley federal y declaró que cualquier persona que ingresara a Estados Unidos sin autorización legal no podía acceder a la libertad bajo fianza si era detenida. Anteriormente, el ICE generalmente solo había negado la libertad bajo fianza a quienes habían llegado recientemente a la frontera.
La Junta de Apelaciones de Inmigración confirmó este cambio en septiembre, poniendo fin a las audiencias de fianza en los tribunales de inmigración para potencialmente millones de personas, incluidas aquellas que han vivido en el país durante décadas.
Como resultado, los abogados han recurrido a los tribunales federales, donde han presentado más de 675 peticiones de hábeas corpus relacionadas con la inmigración, tan solo en Texas, entre enero y noviembre, según un análisis del Texas Tribune de los registros judiciales federales. Esta cifra ya supera la cantidad de peticiones de este tipo presentadas en el estado durante todo el primer mandato de cuatro años de Trump. Más del 70 % de estas demandas se presentaron tan solo en los últimos tres meses.
“He seguido muy de cerca la ampliación de los litigios de hábeas corpus y es un fenómeno real”, declaró Denise Gilman, directora de la Clínica de Inmigración de la Universidad de Texas en Austin. “Nunca antes había visto tanta actividad de hábeas corpus”.
Gilman también dijo que la estrategia está funcionando para desafiar la detención obligatoria.
A nivel nacional, más de 200 jueces que supervisan más de 700 casos han fallado a favor de migrantes que presentaron recursos de hábeas corpus, informó Politico la semana pasada , mientras que solo ocho jueces los han denegado. El primer grupo incluye al menos 12 jueces en Texas, según un informe de Kate Melloy Goettel, directora de la Clínica de Litigios de Impacto Federal de la Universidad de Iowa.
But winning a habeas petition doesn’t guarantee immediate release for migrants in detention. Many would then go before an immigration judge for bond hearings, where the judge would consider factors such as whether they pose a flight or public safety risk.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the federal government is applying the law as written.
She also said the Trump administration is “fulfilling the American people’s mandate to deport dangerous illegal aliens at historic rates,” and called the habeas petitions “nothing more than a desperate Hail Mary attempt to keep illegal aliens in our community, even though they have no legal right to be here.”
Meanwhile, a federal judge in California ruled against the Trump administration late last month in a case involving four people who were denied bond hearings after being detained in Los Angeles, despite having lived in the country for a long time. And in a move hailed as a major win by immigration advocates, she certified a nationwide class of similarly affected individuals, expanding her decision against the new detention policy across the country.
But detained migrants — most of whom can’t find or afford a lawyer — may still have difficulty benefiting from the judge’s decision, Goettel said.
“Unfortunately, those people who don’t have counsel aren’t going to have someone to advocate with the judge about why the class action applies to him or her, and so there’s a chance that the judge won’t apply the class action,” she said.
“Why would they come and get him?”
Shahrokh Rahimi, 53, is one of the immigrants turning to the federal court for help getting out of ICE detention.
Rahimi has lived in San Antonio for over two decades after fleeing political persecution in Iran and entering the country illegally from Canada in 2003, according to his habeas petition. At the urging of his wife, who he met and married in the U.S., Rahimi sought to obtain legal immigration status. In 2010, an immigration judge ordered him removed from the U.S. to any country but Iran — which would require the government to find a third country that would agree to receive him.
Instead, for the past 15 years, the petition says Rahimi has had regular check-ins at the local ICE office. He has also become an active member of his church, doted on his 12-year-old daughter and worked as a professional caretaker, most recently helping a retired woman with transportation, cleaning and shopping.
But on June 22, ICE agents detained Rahimi at his home and eventually took him to the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, where he remains more than five months later.
“My daughter’s in the background, crying and walking around and saying, ‘What’s happening, what’s happening?’” said his wife, Brandi Rahimi, 50. “What we heard was they’re going after criminals … My husband has [no criminal history], so why would they come and get him?”
Brandi Rahimi holds a photo of her husband, Shahrokh Rahimi in their home in San Antonio on Dec. 1, 2025.
A search of Bexar County and federal court cases found no criminal records for Rahimi, beyond a 2023 speeding ticket that was dismissed after he completed a driver safety course.
DHS didn’t respond to the Tribune’s questions about why he was detained then.
While in custody, Rahimi in late August sought to cancel his removal order in immigration court. He also requested a bond hearing but it was denied in September, prompting the Texas Civil Rights Project to file the habeas petition for him a month later.
According to his wife, it took three months before Rahimi wasn’t crying every other time he called his family. At home, she said it has also been challenging without his income and help with child care. And their daughter has particularly struggled to cope.
“If she doesn’t get a call from him in the morning, then she’s just a mess,” Brandi Rahimi said.
On Monday, an immigration judge again ordered Rahimi’s removal, but his wife said the block on deportation to Iran is still intact and his lawyers have appealed the judge’s decision.
Meanwhile, a federal judge has scheduled a hearing on his habeas petition for Dec. 10, according to Danny Woodward, an attorney with the TCRP. Brandi Rahimi is still hoping her husband will be home for Christmas.
“Please keep praying,” she wrote in her Gofundme campaign Monday.
Using the Laken Riley Act to defend migrants
To bolster Rahimi’s legal argument in the petition, Woodward is partly relying on an unexpected tool: the Laken Riley Act.
Passed in January, the federal law requires the detention of anyone who is an undocumented immigrant and has been arrested for or charged with even minor crimes, such as shoplifting. The act was named for a Georgia nursing student killed by an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela, who had previously been arrested for shoplifting.
While the legislation received some bipartisan support, immigration advocates said it threatens due process rights.
But some attorneys are now using the Laken Riley Act to help challenge the expansion of mandatory detention for migrants.
Their argument: Under its new detention policy, the Trump administration re-interpreted longstanding immigration law to make anyone who illegally entered the U.S. ineligible for bond. But if ICE’s interpretation is correct, why would Congress need to pass new legislation in order to require detention for a smaller group of undocumented immigrants who have also been accused of committing crimes?
“ICE’s whole theory cannot be right if we assume that Congress passed the Laken Riley Act for a reason,” said Dan Gividen, an immigration attorney who previously worked in ICE’s Dallas office as deputy chief counsel. “Because without [undocumented immigrants] having a right to bond, there was no need for the Laken Riley Act.”
McLaughlin del DHS no respondió a la pregunta específica del Tribune sobre este argumento.
En los últimos meses, Gividen ha presentado más de 25 peticiones de hábeas corpus para inmigrantes detenidos, incluidos muchos que están representados por abogados de inmigración que no están tan familiarizados con este tipo de maniobras en los tribunales federales.
Si bien muchas de esas peticiones siguen pendientes, los registros judiciales muestran que jueces, tanto demócratas como republicanos, han recomendado u ordenado la liberación de migrantes o han concedido audiencias de fianza en ocho demandas. En otro caso, el ICE liberó al individuo antes del fallo del juez.
Gividen afirmó que ahora es más fácil ganar estas peticiones en Texas tras el cambio de política del gobierno federal.
“El ICE voló demasiado cerca del sol”, dijo.
