Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vache Harutyunyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, entered the United States on June 27, 2023, through the CBP-1 program. After a brief detention at the border, immigration authorities determined he was neither a danger nor a flight risk and released him on an order of recognizance. He maintained a fixed residence in California, promptly notified authorities of any address changes, obtained work authorization valid through 2030, and filed a pending asylum application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He lived freely in the community for more than three years, maintaining lawful employment and developing substantial community ties.
On September 22, 2026, Harutyunyan was suddenly arrested and taken into immigration custody as he was leaving his residence. He received no notice of the reason for the revocation of his release and no opportunity to be heard before an immigration judge on whether his detention was warranted. His removal proceedings remained pending, and he had not been ordered removed. On October 16, 2026, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, asserting that the government violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by revoking his liberty without notice and without an opportunity to be heard.
Harutyunyan consented to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The court issued a briefing schedule requiring the government to file an answer within seven days. The government filed no answer and otherwise did not communicate with the court, leading the court to deem the petition unopposed.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Harutyunyan had a protected due process interest in remaining at liberty because he had been released on an order of recognizance and had resided freely in the community for more than three years. Citing Zadvydas v. Davis, the court emphasized that the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including noncitizens, regardless of the lawfulness of their presence. The court also took judicial notice of ICE's online case information system confirming that his removal proceedings remained pending.
Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court weighed the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation under the procedures used, and the government's interest. Because the government elected not to respond to the petition, the record contained no evidence or argument of a significant government interest in detaining Harutyunyan. The court found it uncontroverted that he had a significant due process interest in release and that all Mathews factors favored him. The court concluded he was entitled to relief on his procedural due process claim and that immediate release was warranted.
The court granted the petition and ordered Harutyunyan's immediate release and restoration of liberty to the conditions existing prior to October 20, 2026. It denied as moot his motion for a temporary restraining order and his motion for appointment of counsel. The court further ordered the government to return all personal belongings seized from him, including identification and work authorization documents, to restore him to the same release conditions in place before his detention, and to file a notice of release within three days. The government was enjoined from re-detaining him absent strict compliance with due process and all applicable statutes and regulations.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens released on orders of recognizance who have lived in the community for years have a protected Fifth Amendment due process interest in their liberty that cannot be revoked without notice and a hearing.
- When the government fails to respond to a habeas petition challenging immigration detention, the court may deem the petition unopposed and find no evidence of a government interest sufficient to justify continued detention under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test.
- A court granting habeas relief in immigration detention cases may order not only immediate release but also the return of seized personal documents, restoration of prior release conditions, and an injunction against future re-detention without due process.
- The government's complete failure to engage with the court left the record devoid of any justification, making the grant of habeas relief straightforward.
- Judicial notice of government databases, such as ICE's online case information system, can be used to confirm the status of pending removal proceedings in habeas proceedings.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces that immigration authorities cannot summarily revoke a noncitizen's release on recognizance and re-detain them without providing notice of the reasons and an opportunity to be heard. It adds to a growing body of district court decisions applying Mathews v. Eldridge to immigration re-detention and finding due process violations where the government provides no pre-deprivation process.
The case also illustrates the practical consequences of the government's failure to defend detention decisions in court. By not filing an answer, the government left the record devoid of any justification, making the grant of habeas relief straightforward. The injunction against future re-detention without due process provides ongoing protection beyond the immediate release order.