Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ingrid Vanessa Zetino Jaco, a native of El Salvador, entered the United States in October 2023 and was released on her own recognizance. In September 2025, an immigration judge ordered her removal, but she timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and that appeal remained pending. In February 2026, ICE officials detained her during a routine check-in, and she remained in custody at the California City Detention Facility.
This was her third habeas petition. She first filed in the District of Maryland, which granted her petition and ordered a bond hearing; an immigration judge subsequently denied bond, finding her a flight risk. She then filed in the Eastern District of California but voluntarily dismissed that action. In October 2026, she filed the present petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing she was unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and that her removal was not reasonably foreseeable, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release.
The Court’s Holding
The court first rejected Respondents' argument that the abuse of writ doctrine barred the petition. It found good cause for a successive petition because an intervening change in Ninth Circuit law—Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock—clarified that noncitizens detained in the interior are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under § 1225(b). This shift in legal authority constituted cause, and failing to consider the new claim would prejudice Petitioner.
Turning to the merits, the court determined that because Petitioner's appeal remained pending, her removal order was not administratively final, and she was therefore detained under § 1226(a), not § 1231(a). Under § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, the government may detain a noncitizen only under the authority of a Form I-200 arrest warrant and must provide a notice of custody determination memorializing the initial custody decision. Respondents did not allege or produce evidence that Petitioner was served with either document.
The court concluded that the government's failure to provide these procedural protections rendered Petitioner's detention unlawful and violated both her statutory rights under the INA and her Fifth Amendment due process rights. Citing its own recent precedents, the court held that such failures mandate immediate release. It granted the habeas petition and temporary restraining order, ordering Respondents to immediately release Petitioner, return her documents and possessions, refrain from imposing additional restrictions absent a future custody hearing, and provide a prompt bond hearing if they seek to re-detain her.
Key Takeaways
- An intervening change in circuit law regarding the statutory basis for immigration detention can establish good cause to file a successive habeas petition, overcoming the abuse of writ doctrine.
- Noncitizens with pending appeals of removal orders are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1231(a), because the removal order is not yet administratively final.
- Detention under § 1226(a) requires the government to serve an arrest warrant (Form I-200) and a notice of custody determination; failure to provide either renders the detention unlawful.
- The government's failure to satisfy § 1226(a)'s procedural protections constitutes a violation of both statutory rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights.
- A district court may order immediate release as a remedy for unlawful immigration detention and may impose conditions on any future re-detention, including a prompt bond hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that procedural safeguards in immigration detention are not mere formalities but statutory and constitutional requirements. By ordering immediate release for a detainee held for months without an arrest warrant or custody notice, the court signaled that it will not tolerate detention that bypasses the basic protections Congress established in § 1226(a). The order further directs that if the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide a prompt bond hearing at which Petitioner bears the burden of showing she is not a flight risk or a risk to community safety.
The ruling also illustrates how shifts in circuit precedent can reopen the door for detainees to challenge their custody even after prior petitions. As courts continue to clarify the statutory framework governing interior detention, this case demonstrates that habeas corpus remains a vital check on executive detention authority, ensuring that noncitizens receive the process due to them before being deprived of their liberty.