Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Geronimo Esono Ndong Angue, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 29, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He also moved for a temporary restraining order that day. On November 3, the court set a briefing schedule and directed the respondent to identify any law or fact distinguishing the case from several prior decisions of the same court. The respondent was also directed to state any opposition to a merits ruling on the existing briefing and to provide substantive reasons supporting its position.
The respondent filed a motion to dismiss on November 4, arguing that Angue had failed to exhaust administrative remedies or, alternatively, was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The respondent did not oppose a merits ruling on the present briefing. Its evidence showed that when Angue was arrested on August 19, 2026, he requested a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge after the initial custody determination left him in ICE custody pending removal proceedings. He did not receive that hearing until October 20, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court waived exhaustion, incorporating its reasoning in Ramirez v. Warden of Golden State Annex Detention Facility and concluding that waiver is appropriate where petitioners raise due process challenges to procedures employed by immigration authorities. On the merits, the court incorporated its reasoning in Escamilla-Santiago v. Andrews, which held that the government’s failure to promptly provide a requested custody redetermination hearing violated due process. Because Angue waited more than two months after requesting a hearing, the court concluded that his detention violates due process and ordered his immediate release. It also cited Brito v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as reaching the same conclusion for a petitioner who waited approximately six weeks.
The order granted the habeas petition and directed the respondent to release Angue immediately. It enjoined and restrained the respondent from re-detaining him for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge, with the burden set in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. The court granted Angue’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied his motions to appoint counsel, for expedited return and record production, and for a temporary restraining order as moot, and denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the Central Valley Annex Facility, enter judgment for Angue, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A delay of more than two months in providing a requested immigration custody redetermination hearing violated due process under the reasoning the court incorporated from Escamilla-Santiago.
- The court waived administrative exhaustion because Angue challenged the procedures used by immigration authorities on due process grounds.
- The respondent was ordered to release Angue immediately and generally may not re-detain him without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge, absent exigent circumstances.
- The court resolved the petition on the existing briefing after the respondent did not oppose that procedure, and it denied the motion to dismiss.
- Angue’s remaining motions were denied as moot because the habeas relief had been granted, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the court’s prior due-process reasoning to a concrete detention timeline: an August 19 request followed by an October 20 hearing. It treats the resulting delay of more than two months as sufficient to require habeas relief, while also citing a prior decision involving an approximately six-week delay.
The relief extends beyond release by regulating any future re-detention. Except in exigent circumstances, the respondent must provide notice and a hearing before an immigration judge before detaining Angue again, with the burden governed by § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. The order also shows the court deciding both exhaustion and the merits on the existing briefing rather than accepting the respondent’s dismissal arguments.