Leanny Sorelbis Hernandez Torrealba has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since at least August 2025, when she filed a motion for bond reconsideration that was denied in September. She filed a habeas corpus petition in January 2026 challenging her detention as an unreasonable violation of Fifth Amendment due process rights, along with a request for emergency relief that Judge Barker denied in February.
The case turns on whether Hernandez must exhaust administrative appeals before federal courts can intervene — a requirement the government argues applies broadly here. But Judge Barker expressed skepticism about the government's position, writing that federal respondents 'simply argue (summarily) that Petitioner should be required to exhaust these claims regardless of her chances of success at the administrative level.' The court noted that this approach ignores established precedent requiring analysis of whether administrative remedies would be futile.
The dispute centers on a 2019 Attorney General ruling known as Matter of M-S, which bars bond hearings for asylum seekers transferred from expedited removal to full proceedings after establishing credible fear. As Judge Barker noted, under that precedent, 'an alien who is transferred from expedited removal proceedings to full removal proceedings after establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture is ineligible for release on bond' and 'must be detained until his removal proceedings conclude, unless he is granted parole.'
Hernandez's case has a complex procedural history spanning multiple immigration proceedings. She initially faced expedited removal but was placed in standard removal proceedings after an immigration judge vacated an asylum officer's negative credible fear determination. She now has two appeals pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals: one challenging the denial of her bond request and another appealing an order of removal to Ecuador issued in February 2026. She also has three parole requests pending with ICE.
Hernandez argued that all three factors from the Ninth Circuit's Puga v. Chertoff test favor waiving the exhaustion requirement. She contended that her prolonged detention claim 'is principally a legal question that does not require the record that would be developed by appealing to the BIA,' and that administrative review cannot correct any agency mistake because 'the BIA is bound by the Attorney General's decision in Matter of M-S.'
The government's response failed to engage with the Puga analysis, prompting Judge Barker to order supplemental briefing. The court directed federal officials to address whether Hernandez has any administrative path to obtain bond 'in light of the Attorney General's decision in Matter of M-S' and whether subsequent events have rendered her bond appeal 'effectively moot.' The judge also questioned what administrative remedies exist for challenging ICE's inaction on parole requests.
Judge Barker gave the government until April 20 to file a 10-page brief addressing these issues, followed by Hernandez's response due April 27. The court's order signals potential skepticism about requiring exhaustion when administrative remedies appear foreclosed by binding precedent, a position that could have broader implications for detained asylum seekers challenging prolonged custody.