Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pedro Enrique Miranda Avila, a native of Venezuela, entered the United States without inspection in September 2021 and subsequently applied for asylum and withholding of removal. An immigration judge denied his asylum application but granted withholding of removal to Venezuela on April 4, 2024. Miranda Avila did not appeal that decision, rendering his removal order administratively final on that date. Despite the final order, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not detain him during the three-month removal period, which expired on July 4, 2024, even though the government knew his presence and address in the United States.
On August 2, 2026, ICE officers encountered Miranda Avila at the Salt Lake County Adult Detention Complex, where he was being held in connection with an arrest for property damage and domestic violence, and took him into immigration custody. He remained detained while being processed for removal to a third country. On September 23, 2026, Miranda Avila filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that his arrest without pre-deprivation process violated due process. Respondents did not oppose the court ruling directly on the merits, filed an omnibus answer contending he was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), and after supplemental briefing ordered by the court, attached a third-country removal notice to Mexico and related detention documents.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition and temporary restraining order, ordering Miranda Avila's immediate release. The court held that Respondents violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process by detaining him without providing the pre-deprivation process required by 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13. Although those regulations facially pertain to revocation of release for noncitizens previously released under § 1231(a)(6), the court reasoned that because ICE did not detain Miranda Avila during the mandatory removal period despite knowing his location, his release was necessarily implied. Consequently, the government was required to follow the procedural protections for revoking that release before re-detaining him, and its failure to do so also violated his statutory rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The court relied on recent decisions from other district courts within the Ninth Circuit, including Orellano v. Hernandez and Mekolli v. Hernandez, which held that when ICE fails to detain a noncitizen during the removal period, it effectively grants release under § 1231(a)(6) and must comply with the regulations governing revocation of release upon subsequent detention. The order directs Respondents to immediately release Miranda Avila, prohibits additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless necessary at a future custody hearing, requires return of his documents and possessions, and enjoins re-arrest or re-detention absent strict compliance with 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13. The court also denied as moot his motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointed counsel, and directed the clerk to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens with final removal orders whom ICE does not detain during the three-month removal period may be entitled to pre-deprivation process under 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13 before being re-detained.
- The government's failure to timely detain a noncitizen during the statutory removal period can constitute an implied release on supervision, triggering procedural protections upon any subsequent detention.
- District courts within the Ninth Circuit are increasingly requiring strict compliance with regulatory pre-deprivation procedures before ICE may lawfully detain noncitizens who were previously at large after their removal orders became final.
- A habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 remains a viable mechanism to challenge the legality of immigration detention on constitutional and statutory grounds.
- When a habeas petition is granted and release ordered, ancillary motions such as in forma pauperis status and appointed counsel may be denied as moot, and the court may enjoin re-detention absent compliance with constitutional protections.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the growing body of case law holding that procedural due process protections attach when the government seeks to re-detain noncitizens after allowing them to remain at liberty following the expiration of the removal period. It clarifies that the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) do not permit the government to indefinitely delay detention and then bypass the regulatory safeguards designed for revocation of release.
The ruling has immediate practical implications for immigration enforcement, requiring ICE to document compliance with 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13 when taking custody of individuals who were not detained during their removal periods. It also provides a roadmap for habeas petitioners challenging similar detentions, emphasizing that the government's knowledge of a noncitizen's presence and failure to act timely can create enforceable liberty interests, while leaving open the possibility of a future custody hearing if the government later complies with the required procedures.