Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jacinto Raymundo Brito, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection as a minor in 2012 and resided at liberty here for over thirteen years before ICE agents detained him on August 14, 2026, while he was driving home from work. He remained in ICE custody and on September 25, 2026 filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. His petition challenged his arrest and detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing; his motion sought immediate release. The parties did not oppose resolving the habeas petition together with the motion.
The government's filings showed that Brito received a notice to appear, an arrest warrant, and a notice of custody determination on the day of his arrest, and he did not dispute their authenticity. The custody notice showed he requested immigration-judge review on August 14 by checking the provided box. His custody redetermination hearing did not occur until September 22, 2026, and the immigration judge denied bond. The government did not explain the approximately six-week delay.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the challenge to Brito's initial detention on this record. It explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its regulations authorize detention pending a removal decision and require an initial DHS custody determination; the served warrant and custody paperwork rebutted his contrary allegations. The court distinguished decisions requiring a pre-deprivation hearing where DHS had previously released a noncitizen or already knew of the person's presence, finding no such circumstances or further supporting argument here. It nevertheless held that the statutory framework did not excuse the delayed immigration-court review.
Applying the two-step procedural-due-process analysis, the court found a protected liberty interest in Brito's continued freedom, emphasizing his long residence, nursery business, lack of criminal history, and the government's failure to contest that interest. Under Mathews v. Eldridge, the private-interest factor favored him. The risk-of-erroneous-deprivation factor also favored him because promptness and a neutral adjudicator are essential features of custody review; the court additionally noted an unexplained discrepancy in which Brito said he reserved an appeal but the immigration judge's order recorded a waiver, while the government argued his failure to appeal barred habeas relief.
The court found the government's interest in detaining Brito for over a month without the statutorily available hearing to be low. All three Mathews factors favored him, and due process required a prompt custody redetermination hearing. The order granted both filings, directed immediate release without additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless found necessary at a future custody hearing, required return of his documents and possessions, and prescribed a prompt bond hearing if the government seeks re-detention, at which Brito would bear the burden of showing he is neither a flight risk nor a community-safety risk. The Clerk was directed to serve the detention facility, enter judgment for Brito, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen's initial detention may be statutorily authorized while a substantial delay in obtaining immigration-judge custody review still violates procedural due process.
- The court treated promptness and review by a neutral adjudicator as complementary safeguards when continued physical liberty is at stake.
- An unexplained order stating that Brito waived his appeal strengthened the court's concern about erroneous deprivation because the government simultaneously relied on nonexhaustion.
- The remedy was immediate release and restoration of the prior uncontested status, not merely another delayed hearing before the immigration judge.
- Any future re-detention must be accompanied by a prompt bond hearing under the burden allocation expressly stated in the order.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the legality of the arrest and initial custody determination from the constitutional adequacy of later procedures. Even where the government supplies the required warrant and custody notice, prolonged detention before a requested hearing can fail the Mathews balancing test. The court's analysis also shows why an apparent appeal waiver matters when exhaustion is disputed: the recorded waiver could leave a detainee without the very administrative remedy the government says he must pursue.
The relief was concrete and immediate. It addressed release, property, monitoring, and the procedures governing any attempted re-detention, while directing entry of judgment and closure of the case. The order did not adopt a general rule that every § 1226(a) arrest requires a pre-deprivation hearing; instead, it resolved that issue against Brito on this record and grounded relief in the delayed post-deprivation review and the particular risk of error demonstrated here.