Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Augusto Campi Ystillarte, an immigration detainee at the Desert View Facility in Adelanto, California, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 23, 2026. He alleged that respondents arrested and detained him without notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating the Fifth Amendment, and that they failed to follow the procedures in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). He sought immediate release, declaratory relief, an injunction restricting future re-detention, and attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Respondents filed a response, and Campi Ystillarte replied.
The court recounted that Campi Ystillarte, a Venezuelan citizen, was admitted at Miami International Airport in September 2021 as a nonimmigrant visitor authorized to remain until March 14, 2022. He applied for asylum and withholding of removal in early 2022. On August 26, 2026, after his flight itinerary came to ICE's attention, officers arrested him at Los Angeles International Airport. The administrative record stated that he would remain in custody pending removal proceedings. The court noted no record of an immigration judge's custody-redetermination hearing, a final removal order, or criminal history.
The Court’s Holding
The court declined to dismiss the due-process claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It reasoned that a post-deprivation bond hearing would not address the asserted absence of constitutionally adequate safeguards before Campi Ystillarte lost his liberty. Even assuming the prudential-exhaustion factors favored exhaustion, the court would waive it as futile: the availability of a § 1226(a) bond hearing established only that later process was available, not that immigration court could remedy the lack of pre-deprivation process.
On the merits, the court found a protected liberty interest based on the government's admission of Campi Ystillarte and its decision to leave him at liberty for years after his authorized stay expired, with his asylum application on file. Applying Mathews v. Eldridge, it found his interest in freedom from detention substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation significant, and the government's enforcement interest diminished by his longstanding community residence, pending asylum application, and lack of criminal history. It also found the burden of providing pre-detention safeguards minimal. The balance therefore favored him, and detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated procedural due process.
The court held that release, rather than merely a later bond hearing, was the appropriate remedy because the later hearing would not cure the completed constitutional injury. It found no urgency supporting arrest without prior process, noting that officers knew of his travel in advance. The November 5, 2026 order granted the petition in part on Count One, directed immediate release and a compliance status report within three days, left any fee application to the Equal Access to Justice Act's procedures, and denied the remaining requests. It declined to decide the statutory claim or enjoin future lawful re-detention with all required process.
Key Takeaways
- The court waived exhaustion because a later immigration bond hearing could not remedy the claimed absence of process before detention.
- Admission to the United States followed by years at liberty supported a protected liberty interest despite the expiration of the authorized stay.
- All three Mathews factors favored Campi Ystillarte, although the court characterized the government-interest factor as weighing only somewhat in his favor.
- Immediate release was ordered because a post-deprivation hearing would not undo the injury caused by unconstitutional detention.
- The ruling did not resolve the statutory claim or prohibit future re-detention conducted lawfully and with all process due.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the availability of administrative bond proceedings from the constitutional question whether the government provided adequate process before taking a noncitizen into custody. It applies that distinction both to exhaustion and to the remedy, concluding that later process neither excuses judicial review nor repairs the violation on this record.
The order is expressly confined to the detention that began on August 26, 2026. It leaves open whether and under what circumstances respondents may lawfully seek to detain Campi Ystillarte again, while requiring compliance with applicable authorities and all process he is due.