Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Isael Alonso-Hernandez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. The petition included a due process claim identified as Count Two. The court explained that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
The court also described its prior decisions addressing re-detention of noncitizens who had been released on bond or conditional parole under § 1226(a), or on humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). Those decisions required the government to provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which bond eligibility must be considered. The cited decisions included Selis Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, D.L.C., and Altin.
On October 14, 2026, the court told the parties it was considering ruling directly on the petition and asked whether they opposed simultaneous resolution of the motion for temporary restraining order and habeas petition. It also directed Respondents to identify any material factual or legal distinctions from the earlier cases. Respondents opposed the motion on grounds already addressed in those cases, acknowledged that Alonso-Hernandez's parole fit the category the court had treated as more significant than manner of entry, and did not oppose a direct ruling on the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both the habeas petition and the temporary-restraining-order motion as to Count Two. Because Respondents offered no new legal arguments and identified no material distinction from the court's prior decisions, the court adopted the reasoning in Altin. It concluded that the proper remedy for the failure to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing was immediate release. The court did not wait for a reply from Alonso-Hernandez, who was proceeding pro se, because doing so would delay the relief being granted.
The order directed that Alonso-Hernandez shall be released immediately from Respondents' custody under the same conditions that applied immediately before his detention on August 27, 2026. Respondents could not add restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing determined they were necessary. They also had to return his documents and possessions upon release and file a notice confirming compliance within three days. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case.
If the government seeks to re-detain Alonso-Hernandez, it must give him at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter where his bond eligibility is considered. The court expressly did not address detention circumstances if he becomes subject to an executable final removal order and receives notice of it. A footnote also explained that resolving the due process claim made it unnecessary to address additional grounds in the petition.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted substantive habeas relief on Count Two rather than merely issuing temporary detention-related relief.
- Immediate release was the remedy for the government's failure to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing.
- Release restored the conditions in place before the August 27, 2026 detention and barred added monitoring unless a future hearing found it necessary.
- Any government effort to re-detain Alonso-Hernandez requires at least seven days' notice and a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The order left other petition grounds and detention following notice of an executable final removal order unaddressed.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the court's earlier due process framework to a detained noncitizen whose parole was treated as more significant than his manner of entry. It also shows the court resolving the habeas petition directly when Respondents identified no new argument or material distinction and did not oppose that procedure.
The judgment provides specific release, property-return, compliance, and future-hearing requirements while preserving a defined issue concerning an executable final removal order. It does not decide any additional grounds raised in the petition.