Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Darwin Jerardo Chumux Ayala, an immigration detainee represented by counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Acting Warden of the ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, California, the Department of Homeland Security, and several federal officials including Acting ICE Director David Venturella, Acting Director for the Executive Office for Immigration Review Sirce Owen, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, and United States Attorney General Todd Blanche. The petition alleged, among other things, that he was being detained in violation of due process and sought his immediate release from custody.
The court had issued a Notice of General Order 26-05 and briefing schedule requiring respondents to file a notice of appearance within three calendar days and an answer within seven days of the notice. Despite that notice, respondents filed neither a timely appearance nor an answer, leaving the petition unopposed. The parties had consented to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge.
Petitioner was born in Guatemala and entered the United States as a minor on May 2, 2019, when Border Patrol briefly detained him, his mother, and his siblings before releasing them on their own recognizance. Since then, he attended school and worked in the United States, complied with the conditions of his release and the laws of the United States, developed significant ties to the community, and had no criminal record. On October 21, 2026, ICE pulled him over and arrested him while he was on his way to work, and he remained in ICE custody at the time of the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court treated respondents' non-opposition as effectively a concession that the relief requested in the petition should be granted, citing a line of Central District of California decisions holding that failure to oppose a due process claim operates as a concession. The court relied on Espinales Martinez v. Mullin, Maltez Reyes v. Janecka, Li v. Warden of Adelanto ICE Processing Center, Guadran v. Mullin, Rojas v. Mullin, and Soleimani v. Larose for that proposition.
The court also noted it had previously found that individuals similarly situated to petitioner were entitled to immediate release from custody because they were re-detained without due process of law, citing Andres v. Semaia, Gallosa-Zapata v. Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, and Rivera Castaño v. Blanche. Given respondents' lack of opposition to the petition and for the reasons set forth in those decisions and the relevant cases cited in those opinions, the court granted the petition.
The court ordered respondents to immediately release petitioner from immigration custody subject to the conditions of his most recent order of supervision, if any, and without the imposition of any new or further restraints. Respondents were also enjoined from re-detaining petitioner absent strict compliance with the requirements of due process and all applicable statutes and regulations. Additionally, the court ordered respondents to file a declaration by no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 9, 2026, confirming that petitioner has been released from custody.
Key Takeaways
- An unopposed immigration habeas petition was granted, with the court treating the government's failure to file a timely appearance or answer as a concession of the due process claim.
- The petitioner, who entered the United States as a minor in 2019 and had no criminal record, was ordered immediately released from ICE custody.
- The order bars re-detention absent strict compliance with due process and all applicable statutes and regulations, and forbids any new or further restraints beyond the most recent order of supervision.
- The decision follows a series of recent Central District of California rulings granting release where immigration detainees were re-detained without due process and the government did not oppose.
- Respondents were required to file a declaration confirming release by 5:00 p.m. on November 9, 2026.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to a growing body of Central District of California habeas rulings ordering the release of immigration detainees who were re-arrested after years of compliance with release conditions, particularly where the government fails to respond. It underscores that non-opposition in this posture is treated as a concession of the due process claim.
The order's injunction against re-detention absent strict due process compliance, and its directive that no new restraints be imposed, illustrate the concrete relief courts are providing in these cases beyond a bare release order.