Charles Gearing felt an itch last summer to get more involved in pro bono work. The healthcare litigation lawyer at Weaver Johnston Nelson in Dallas found a project that advertised a limited scope — helping detained noncitizens apply for bond — that it seemed like work that required less lawyering than sleuthing and logistical hustle, or so Gearing thought.
He took on the case of Pedro Romo Navarro, a Mexican citizen living in Dallas for the past three decades who was facing deportation after being stopped by police for riding a bicycle without a front light.
But about 30 minutes before Navarro’s hearing, Gearing received a brief notice from the immigration judge stating she lacked jurisdiction and summarily denied bond. Anticipating a chance to preserve the issue for appeal, Gearing logged on to the virtual hearing anyway. But, he said, the judge denied him an opportunity to make a record.
What began as a seemingly simple bond request plunged Gearing into a nationwide legal and political controversy over the detention of longtime U.S. residents with no criminal records, often for months at a time in unsanitary facilities and without the opportunity for a bond hearing. Lawyers argue that these detentions violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and constitutional due process rights.
Gearing spoke with The Texas Lawbook about the process, much of which is not typically a matter of public record, and how a seemingly modest pro bono effort spiraled into a high-stakes constitutional challenge.
Navarro, who was 45 when his detention case began, came to the U.S. in 1997 at age 17. He later married a U.S. citizen, had two daughters — who now live in Houston with children of their own — and established himself as a respected construction worker specializing in residential framing. He regularly travels to Houston to spend time with his daughters and grandchildren, Gearing said.
Navarro had no criminal record when he was stopped by a police officer on June 13, 2025, for riding a bicycle without a front light. According to his petition for writ of habeas corpus, the officer arrested Navarro on a charge of evading arrest after Navarro did not come to a full stop. The following month, the charge was reduced to a Class C misdemeanor for disorderly conduct and the case was resolved. By then, however, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement had placed a hold on him.
Gearing, who has handled pro bono matters throughout his career and wanted to increase his volunteer work, was connected with the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office, which had represented Navarro in his state court case. Alongside a public defender, Gearing met Navarro at the Dallas County jail.
Afterward, Gearing called his good friend Kristi Kirby, a paralegal of more than 30 years whom he had worked with years earlier at Haynes Boone. Kirby had recently retired from Baker Botts and was looking forward to traveling and joining book clubs.
Compelled to help, Kirby put her retirement plans on hold to assist Gearing with conducting and transcribing interviews for Navarro’s application for a bond hearing. They filed the request Aug. 26, supported by about a dozen letters from family and friends. By that point, Navarro had been transferred into ICE custody and moved among facilities before landing in Pearsall, southwest of San Antonio.
On Sep. 15 — about 30 minutes before the scheduled virtual hearing — Gearing said he received a short email from the court denying the bond request for lack of jurisdiction, citing the Board of Immigration Administration’s decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado that same month.
The BIA, an executive-branch tribunal that sets binding policy for immigration courts nationwide, had adopted the government’s recent reinterpretation of the mandatory and discretionary detention provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The provisions in question are 8 U.S.C. Sections 1225 and 1226. One provision applies to “arriving” noncitizens who are deemed “applicants for admission” and are “seeking admission” to the country. Immigration agencies and courts have long interpreted this provision to cover individuals apprehended at or near the border as they enter the country. Detention under this statute is generally mandatory, with only narrow exceptions, and individuals held pursuant to it have little opportunity to seek release while deportation or asylum proceedings are pending.
The other provision permits, but does not require, immigration authorities to detain noncitizens who are not treated as applicants for admission and who are already present in the U.S. This provision has long been applied to undocumented immigrants who have lived in the country for years, including many who were paroled into the U.S. after encounters with immigration officials at the border. Many have established substantial ties to the U.S., including American citizen spouses or children, employment authorization and pending applications for asylum or other forms of lawful status.
Under long-standing regulations, people subject to detention under this provision may seek a bond hearing in immigration court, an administrative court system housed within the executive branch. Immigration judges, who are executive branch employees, determine whether individuals pose dangers to the public and what conditions are necessary to ensure their appearance at future proceedings. Where those concerns are not present, judges set a bond.
But last year, the government deviated from its longstanding interpretation and began classifying virtually all deportation targets as “applicants for admission,” therefore eliminating their opportunity to seek bond.
Gearing decided to attend the virtual hearing anyway, anticipating the immigration judge would allow him to make a brief presentation for the purposes of creating a record that could be used in an appeal.
Instead, Gearing said, Immigration Judge Veronica M. Segovia declined to go on the record and removed him from the virtual courtroom.
Gearing said right then he called on industry colleagues to mount a writ of habeas corpus petition and argue that Navarro’s due process rights had been violated.
“I’m ready to chase these guys to the gates of Hell,” Gearing recalled saying, adding that he believes “cruelty is the point” of the government’s strategy.
Weeks later, with help from the public defender’s office and colleagues from Texas A&M School of Law and University of California Berkeley School of Law, Gearing and Kirby filed the habeas petition in the Western District Court of Texas.
The federal judiciary, which is not bound by the BIA rulings, has been inundated with similar cases in the past six months or so. Many judges across the country have found that the government’s new interpretation of mandatory detention under the INA is either incorrect or likely incorrect and they’ve either ordered bond hearings or outright release.
In at least one Western District of Texas case — Ennzo Emmanuel de Jesus Lopez-Arevelo v. Garrett Ripa, et al — the government acknowledged confusion stemming from the policy change, noting that “for the past 30 years, DHS has allowed them to get a bond,” according to U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone’s September order.
A similar case, Victor Buenrostro-Mendez v. Pamela Bondi, et al, is scheduled for argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals or the Fifth Circuit Tuesday morning. The panel includes Judges Edith H. Jones, a President Ronald Reagan appointee, Stuart Kyle Duncan, a President Trump appointee, and Dana M. Douglas, a President Joe Biden appointee.
U.S. District Judge Leon Schydlower in El Paso recently alerted attorneys in pending habeas cases in his court to the upcoming Fifth Circuit decision, warning they should be prepared for dispositive rulings. As of Jan. 29, Judge Schydlower wrote, his court had 134 such cases pending and was receiving up to 25 new filings each week.
“The Court anticipates that once the Fifth Circuit issues its opinion, the undersigned may have between 200 to 250 pending cases regarding this issue,” Judge Schydlower’s notice reads.
Immigration legal aid organizations have also been overwhelmed amid the deluge of detention cases, advocates say, and representing detained individuals present special challenges while they’re detained.
While Navarro remained in ICE custody, Gearing said officials repeatedly invited Navarro to agree to self-deportation. Navarro considered the offers, Gearing said, but ultimately declined. In December, they prevailed.
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery — a President Bill Clinton appointee who on Jan. 31 gained nationwide coverage for his scathing three-page opinion of the federal government and order releasing a 5-year-old Minnesota boy whose image of being detained while wearing a Spider-Man backpack and blue knit bunny hat has sparked outrage aimed at ICE — ordered Navarro released.
Judge Biery explained that ordering a bond hearing in Navarro’s case would have been futile.
“If the Court ordered a bond hearing, it would require the immigration judge to do that, which in light of BIA precedent, the judge would not believe she had jurisdiction to do,” Judge Biery wrote.
Gearing saw the order come through his email inbox first. He hollered to Kirby from his firm office, and the pair rushed into the hallway, hugging in celebration. Navarro was released the morning of Dec. 3 and was met by a relative who had driven overnight from Houston. Gearing called the fight one of the greatest privileges of his career.
Two days before Christmas, Gearing wrote about the victory on Facebook.
“While we are hesitant to post about client business ever on social media, we felt it was too important to educate our community and fellow lawyers about this ongoing legal travesty being perpetrated against thousands of detainees, who are routinely being denied their due process rights every day in this country, by their own government, and pursuant to an extreme, twisted application of longstanding federal law,” he wrote.
“It’s a reminder,” Gearing added, “that while things may seem tough and terrible — you have the power to do something about it.”
Gearing and Kirby have since taken on another habeas case and they now implore fellow lawyers and paralegals to turn their pro bono efforts to this work.
“Anyone, likely even without legal experience, should be able to help these overwhelmed organizations triage cases by doing basic case intake when a call comes in,” Kirby said. “Paralegals, legal secretaries, and other non-lawyers with legal experience can absolutely help out in various ways to make it easier on the attorneys and organizations to effectively represent these clients.”
“We enjoy a tremendous privilege being lawyers in this country,” Gearing added. “We have a responsibility to protect our rule of law and to make sure it extends to everyone. That rule of law, and our sense of justice, is what makes us great. These cases are not about pushing an agenda or achieving a policy goal — they are about the preservation and enforcement of existing legal rights under existing law.”