Challenging DHS Overreach: Due Process Prevails in Sanchez Aparicio v. Noem

United States District Court

Samuel Sanchez Aparicio v. Kristi Noem, et al.

No. 2:25-cv-01919-RFB-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 23, 2025) Judge Richard F. Boulware, II

In Sanchez Aparicio v. Noem, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted a preliminary injunction ordering the release of petitioner Samuel Sanchez Aparicio, a long-term Nevada resident detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The court found that his continued detention under an automatic stay provision, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2), violated both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Judge Boulware’s opinion builds upon a growing line of case. In Herrera v. Knight and Maldonado Vazquez v. Feeley, the court in rejecting the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) recent reinterpretation of its detention authority. DHS had invoked the automatic stay after an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Sanchez Aparicio’s release on bond, arguing he was subject to mandatory detention as an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).

The Court, however, held that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2), governs his detention because he had long resided in the U.S. and was not an arriving alien.

Applying the Winter v. NRDC preliminary injunction standard, the Court found that the petitioner was likely to succeed on the merits, faced irreparable harm through unconstitutional confinement, and that the balance of equities and public interest overwhelmingly favored his release. The Court emphasized that continued detention under an invalid regulation constitutes an ongoing deprivation of liberty, and that neither equity nor public policy supports the government’s unlawful interpretation of the INA.

Judge Boulware thus ordered Sanchez Aparicio’s release by October 24, 2025, under the bond previously set by the IJ, and enjoined DHS from enforcing the automatic stay regulation. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding due process rights against executive overreach in immigration detention and underscores a nationwide judicial consensus that DHS’s new detention policy exceeds statutory and constitutional limits.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.