Muire-Roldan, a 45-year-old native and citizen of Cuba, has been in detention since March 3, 2026. He was arrested by the Whiteland, Indiana, Police Department for driving without a license after presenting his Employment Authorization Document. He was subsequently transferred to the Hopkins County Jail in Kentucky, where ICE issued an I-200 Warrant for his arrest.
ICE argued that Muire-Roldan was subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225 based on interim DHS guidance issued July 8, 2025. The government contended that only noncitizens already admitted into the United States are eligible for release during removal proceedings, while all others are subject to mandatory detention. This position reversed longstanding policy.
The court rejected the government’s interpretation, holding that Muire-Roldan, who was paroled into the interior of the United States in January 2024, is not “seeking admission” and cannot be placed in expedited removal. Consequently, the court determined that Section 1226, not Section 1225, governs his detention.
Addressing the due process claim, the court applied the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge. It found that Muire-Roldan has a significant private interest in liberty, separated from his family and community in Indianapolis. The court noted that re-detention without individualized assessment creates a high risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty.
The court also weighed the United States’ interest, acknowledging the government’s interest in public safety and appearance at proceedings. However, it found that a routine bond hearing imposes minimal burden and that existing statutory and regulatory safeguards adequately serve governmental interests. All three Mathews factors favored Muire-Roldan.
The court ordered the United States to release Muire-Roldan immediately due to the unlawful detention. It further directed that the government must provide him with a bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to Section 1226 and its supporting regulations, including 8 C.F.R. §§ 1236.1(c)(8) and (d)(1).
The government was ordered to certify compliance with the court’s order by filing on the docket by April 18, 2026. The ruling relies on prior decisions from the Western District of Kentucky, including Vicen v. Lewis and Patel v. Tindall, which established that individuals paroled without first being placed in expedited removal cannot later be designated for such removal.