Client Update: Federal Court Grants Injunction in Maldonado v. Feeley, Striking Down ICE’s Automatic Stay Policy
Lilliana Mier Lartigue • October 17, 2025
Justice Prevails: Maldonado Injunction Brings Relief to Detained Immigrants in Nevada
On September 9, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued a landmark ruling in Maldonado Vázquez v. Feeley
et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY, granting a preliminary injunction and ordering the same-day release of our client, Miguel Maldonado Vázquez, from ICE custody. The court found that DHS’s use of the automatic stay provision under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) — which blocks Immigration Judge bond orders — violated Mr. Maldonado’s constitutional rights, both facially and as applied.
This litigation began as a dual complaint and petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on behalf of Mr. Maldonado and similarly situated individuals. The complaint includes a putative class action challenging the systemic use of the automatic stay to override Immigration Judge bond determinations. The court’s injunction — one of the first known in the District of Nevada addressing this issue — now paves the way for broader relief and future challenges.
The decision came just days after the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), adopting DHS’s sweeping new interpretation of INA § 1225(b)(2) to mandate detention for nearly all noncitizens who entered without inspection, regardless of their ties to the United States or location of apprehension. In direct contrast, the federal court affirmed that due process cannot be suspended by regulation, and that liberty must be protected even in the face of bureaucratic overreach.
Mr. Maldonado, a longtime Las Vegas resident, father of three U.S. citizen children, and small business owner, was detained in July 2025 during a roadside stop far from any border or port of entry. Despite having no criminal history and deep community ties, ICE invoked the automatic stay to prevent his release after an Immigration Judge found he posed no danger or flight risk. Our legal team argued that the automatic stay deprived Mr. Maldonado of due process and prolonged his detention unlawfully. The court agreed.
This litigation was initiated by our small team in Las Vegas — not by a national organization, but by a local legal team committed to protecting our clients and resisting injustice in our own community. We drew strength and strategy from prior cases, including Herrera Torralba v. Feeley, Case No. 2:25-cv-01366-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.), and Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, Case No. 3:25-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash.), whose counsel we thank for their foundational work. We are also deeply appreciative of the assistance provided by both local and national chapters of the ACLU. These cases helped expose the systemic misuse of the automatic stay and the absence of lawful DHS certifications, and we are proud to have carried that momentum forward in Nevada.
The challenges we faced were immense. Transfers, silence, procedural gamesmanship — all designed to break resolve. But we refused to bend. This victory is a token of resistance. It has already helped others in Nevada secure release, restore hope, and reclaim their voice. And it reminds us that even in the face of systemic injustice, justice is still possible.
The case remains active. Our request for declaratory relief is pending, and we continue to pursue class-wide remedies for those subjected to unconstitutional detention under DHS’s automatic stay policy. We will also continue to challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals’ holding in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which seeks to expand mandatory detention far beyond statutory limits. This fight is not over — and we remain steadfast in our commitment to liberty, due process, and community defense.
We will continue to fight. We will continue to file. And we will not be moved.
For press inquiries or to learn more about our litigation efforts, contact:
Lipp Law LLC
📍 2580 Sorrel St, Las Vegas, NV 89146
📧 info@lipplaw.vegas
Case Citation:
Maldonado Vázquez v. Feeley et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.)
Immigration Law Updates
On September 5, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a major decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado that will affect thousands of immigrants in the United States. In this ruling, the BIA held that individuals who entered the U.S. without being formally admitted are no longer eligible for bond hearings before an immigration judge. Instead, they must remain in detention while their cases are pending—unless the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants discretionary parole, which is rare and difficult to obtain. Why This Matters Immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years without admission may now face indefinite detention during removal proceedings. Immigration judges have been stripped of their authority to grant release on bond in these cases. The only option for release is parole, which is entirely within DHS’s discretion. This decision builds on earlier cases like Matter of Q. Li and a July 2025 ICE memo that instructed officers to treat nearly all undocumented immigrants as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention. How We Can Help At Lipp Law LLC, we understand how devastating this ruling can be for families. Our team can help you: Evaluate parole requests File Federal legal challenges where possible Explore all available relief options for detained loved ones If you or a family member is affected by this change, contact us today for a consultation. Call us at (702) 745-4700 or schedule a case review here .
