Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Oscar M. Perez-Cardenas, a citizen and national of Columbia, lawfully entered the United States on a student visa in 2021 and had since lived in New Jersey. The order states that he had no prior convictions but faced one pending charge for violating a restraining order. The Hudson County Sheriff's Department arrested him on that charge on July 6, 2026, and the order indicates he was transferred into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on July 16, 2026, when ICE served him with a Notice to Appear and an arrest warrant.
Perez-Cardenas filed this habeas case on August 3, 2026, while detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. His original petition alleged that his due process rights had been violated by his transfer to California and by his continued detention without a bond hearing. After respondents filed a return to the petition and he filed a traverse, he submitted an amended petition with the assistance of counsel. The amended petition claimed that he had been arrested without a warrant in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and should therefore be released, and alternatively requested a bond hearing. Respondents disputed that the arrest was warrantless and argued that the bond-hearing request was moot because he had twice been scheduled for a bond hearing but each time withdrew his request.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by IIRIRA, contains two provisions governing detention of noncitizens in removal proceedings: 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) supplies the mandatory detention framework for noncitizens arriving at the border, while § 1226 governs the discretionary detention framework for noncitizens apprehended within the interior of the United States. Reading § 1226(a), which authorizes arrest 'on a warrant issued by the Attorney General,' together with DHS's enforcing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(b)(1), the court stated that a noncitizen may be arrested and taken into custody at the time the notice to appear is issued or at any time afterward, and that a lawful arrest under the authority of Form I-200, Warrant of Arrest, occurs only after the notice to appear is issued.
Applying that framework to the record, the court found that ICE arrested Perez-Cardenas on July 16, 2026, issued and served the notice to appear and the Form I-200 arrest warrant on that same day, and recorded the arrest at 21:52. Although Perez-Cardenas argued that the sequence within that day was unclear and asserted that ICE never showed him a warrant, the court found no record evidence supporting that assertion; the record affirmatively reflected service of the warrant and notice to appear. The court also noted the undisputed documentary evidence and the two bond hearings that had been scheduled and then withdrawn at his request. The court concluded that he had not met his burden to show that he was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, denied the petition, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated the notice to appear and the Form I-200 arrest warrant as central to the legality of the immigration arrest under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(b)(1).
- Same-day documentary evidence of the arrest, notice to appear, and warrant defeated the petitioner's claim that uncertainty about the precise sequence within the day required his release.
- The petitioner's assertion that ICE never displayed a warrant was unsupported by record evidence, while the record affirmatively reflected that the warrant was served on July 16, 2026.
- The order also recorded that two bond hearings had been scheduled and that Perez-Cardenas withdrew his bond request each time, undercutting the alternative request for a bond hearing.
- The amended petition was denied for failure to establish unconstitutional or unlawful custody, with judgment and case closure ordered.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the statutory and regulatory relationship between a notice to appear and an immigration arrest warrant to a specific documentary record. It places practical weight on dated custody and service records when a habeas petitioner challenges whether the required authorization preceded or accompanied an arrest, and it confirms that the petitioner bears the burden of showing custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law.
The ruling resolved Perez-Cardenas's amended petition on its own record rather than announcing a general entitlement to release or a bond hearing. Its outcome rested on his failure to meet that burden and on the evidence concerning the July 16, 2026 arrest, the same-day service of the notice to appear and warrant, and the subsequent bond-hearing scheduling.