Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Junior Antonio Arteaga Valdivia, a native of Mexico who first entered the United States approximately twenty-four years ago, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking release from ICE custody or, alternatively, a bond hearing. He had been granted voluntary departure in 2011 and left the country, then re-entered in 2013 to reunite with his wife and daughter, with whom he has lived for the past thirteen years. In March 2026, he was a passenger in a car pulled over by ICE, was taken into custody that day, and was served with a Notice to Appear charging him as inadmissible.
An immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico on June 15, 2026, and he timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals on July 1, 2026. By the time of the court's order, he had been detained for seven months without any custody hearing. Respondents contended that Petitioner had developed a significant criminal history, but the court found the evidence did not substantiate that claim: his DHS record showed no criminal convictions, and the FBI rap sheet listed only 2004 charges associated with a traffic accident.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that the record did not support a finding that Petitioner was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). That statute and its implementing regulations require an initial custody review to ensure detention is justified on an individualized basis and to advise noncitizens of their right to seek review before an immigration judge. The I-213 form provided by Respondents did not reflect that any initial custody determination was made when Petitioner was arrested. When the court prompted Respondents to produce the Form I-286 that would have documented the custody determination, Respondents supplemented the record by explaining they could not locate a notice of custody determination in Petitioner's file.
Respondents attempted to remedy the deficiency by providing Petitioner with a notice and an opportunity to request a hearing a day after the court's order, but the court found this came seven months too late. Because Petitioner had been detained for seven months without the process statutorily required under § 1226(a), the court concluded he was detained in violation of his due process rights. The court further held that a belated custody redetermination hearing would not cure the constitutional violation, noting that Petitioner had been held in prison-like conditions without any government assessment that his continued detention was necessary, and that there was no evidence he would be a flight risk or danger to the community.
The court granted the petition, ordered Petitioner's immediate release, and resolved the TRO motion as moot. The order specified that if Respondents seek to re-detain Petitioner, they must provide all process required by § 1226(a), and that the order does not prevent the government from placing reasonable conditions on release. The court expressly noted that the order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Key Takeaways
- Detention of a noncitizen for seven months without the initial custody determination required by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) violates due process, and the appropriate remedy is immediate release rather than a belated bond hearing.
- The government's failure to document an initial custody review—through Form I-286 or otherwise—undermines the lawfulness of continued detention because that review is the mechanism ensuring detention advances legitimate interests in preventing danger and flight risk.
- A post-hoc notice of custody determination and opportunity to request a hearing, provided only after court intervention and months of detention, does not cure the constitutional violation.
- The court distinguished between detention pending removal proceedings and detention under an executable final order of removal, expressly leaving open the government's authority to detain under the latter circumstance.
- Respondents' unsupported assertion that the petitioner had a significant criminal history was contradicted by the record, which showed no criminal convictions and only 2004 traffic-related charges.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that the procedural protections of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)—particularly the initial custody determination—are constitutional prerequisites to lawful immigration detention, not mere technicalities. By ordering immediate release rather than remanding for a belated custody hearing, the court signaled that prolonged detention without statutorily required process cannot be remedied retroactively.
The ruling also shows habeas corpus functioning as a check on executive detention where the government cannot document that it followed its own procedures, and it underscores that detention without an individualized assessment of flight risk or danger is constitutionally suspect regardless of immigration status.