Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Fermin Saavedra Morales, a citizen of Bolivia, entered the United States on April 23, 2024, on a nonimmigrant tourist visa and overstayed. On August 13, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested him. He then filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly detained without an administrative warrant. The Government filed a Return asserting that an administrative warrant existed and arguing that Morales had failed to exhaust administrative remedies because he was entitled to, but had not requested, a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. Morales filed a Traverse clarifying that he was not requesting a bond hearing but immediate release.
The factual dispute centers on the arrest itself. In documents submitted by the Government, the agents state they explained to Morales that they had an administrative warrant for his arrest. Morales, on the other hand, claims he was never shown a warrant or any other document authorizing his arrest. Whether a warrant existed at the time of arrest—and, if not, whether the statutory requirements for a warrantless arrest were satisfied—is the core dispute.
The Court’s Holding
The court first rejected the Government's exhaustion argument. Because Morales is not requesting a bond hearing but immediate release on the ground that his arrest was allegedly unlawful, the court held that requesting or holding a bond hearing would be an insufficient remedy.
On the merits, the court explained the legal framework governing immigration arrests. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), an alien may be arrested and detained on a warrant issued by the Attorney General. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), an ICE agent may arrest without a warrant only if the agent has reason to believe—equivalent to probable cause—that the arrestee is in the United States in violation of immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. If a noncitizen is arrested without a warrant, a determination whether a notice to appear and warrant of arrest will issue must be made within 48 hours. 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d). Even if ICE had probable cause and issued a warrant within 48 hours, it must still satisfy the second, independent prong: that the arrestee was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained.
Applying that framework, the court found the record unclear on two questions: whether the agents had the warrant when they arrested Morales or obtained it within 48 hours afterward, and whether they assessed and had probable cause to believe Morales was likely to escape at the time they detained him. The court therefore ordered the parties to appear for an evidentiary hearing on November 13, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 12B, at which the Government must establish: (1) whether and when the warrant was issued; (2) if it was issued after the arrest, whether it was issued within 48 hours; and (3) whether the agents had probable cause to believe Morales was likely to escape at the time of detention if they acted without a warrant.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen seeking immediate release on the ground that his arrest was unlawful need not first request a bond hearing to exhaust administrative remedies, because a bond hearing would be an insufficient remedy.
- ICE may arrest without a warrant only if the agent has probable cause to believe the individual is in the United States in violation of immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
- Even if ICE obtains a warrant within 48 hours after a warrantless arrest, the Government must still show the arrestee was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained at the time of arrest.
- The likely-to-escape determination must be based on information known to the officers at the time of arrest and particular to the person arrested, under the totality of the circumstances.
- When the record is unclear on whether agents had a warrant or satisfied the warrantless-arrest requirements, the court may order an evidentiary hearing requiring the Government to establish those facts.
Why It Matters
The order adds to a growing body of Southern District of California decisions scrutinizing ICE's warrantless arrest practices. It confirms that the Government bears the burden of proving both that a warrant existed or was timely obtained and that the arresting agents had probable cause to believe the arrestee was likely to escape—an independent requirement that a post hoc warrant alone cannot satisfy.
For habeas petitioners challenging immigration detention, the exhaustion ruling removes a procedural obstacle the Government has raised in similar cases: one seeking immediate release for an unlawful arrest need not pursue a bond hearing first. The evidentiary hearing mechanism also gives courts a structured way to resolve factual disputes about the circumstances of an arrest.