Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Al-Qershi Walla, a Yemeni citizen, became a lawful permanent resident in 2014. Immigration officials detained her in July 2025 and charged her as removable based on an April 2025 California conviction for fentanyl possession. She petitioned for habeas relief in March 2026, seeking release and protection against possible removal to a third country.
The government argued that the controlled-substance conviction triggered mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and that Walla first had to pursue a Joseph hearing in immigration court. Walla did not dispute the conviction itself. By the time of the recommendation she had been confined for roughly fifteen months, her removal case was only beginning, and the record showed no prior individualized bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge agreed that section 1226(c) supplied the statutory detention authority: fentanyl possession falls within the controlled-substance ground identified by the immigration statutes. But statutory authority did not end the constitutional inquiry. The court treated Walla’s claim as an as-applied due-process challenge to the length and procedures of her detention, and it declined to require exhaustion because immigration adjudicators had not shown willingness to decide that constitutional question.
Balancing Walla’s liberty interest, the risk of an erroneous deprivation, and the government’s enforcement interests, the judge found that prolonged custody without any neutral assessment had become constitutionally inadequate. Fifteen months substantially exceeded the short period at issue in Supreme Court precedent, and the removal case had not advanced enough to provide a foreseeable end. The recommendation would require a bond hearing within fourteen days, with the government proving by clear and convincing evidence that Walla is dangerous or likely to flee; otherwise she must be released on appropriate supervision. Her third-country-removal claims were unripe because no removal order existed.
Key Takeaways
- A qualifying controlled-substance conviction can trigger mandatory detention under section 1226(c).
- Mandatory detention may still become unconstitutional as applied when it continues for an extended period without an individualized hearing.
- A Joseph hearing aimed at whether a qualifying conviction exists is not necessarily an adequate remedy for a length-of-detention due-process claim.
- The recommended bond procedure places a clear-and-convincing burden on the government and requires consideration of affordability and alternatives.
- Challenges to hypothetical third-country removal are premature before a final removal order or concrete destination decision.
Why It Matters
The recommendation helps California practitioners separate statutory detention authority from constitutional procedure. Conceding that section 1226(c) applies does not concede that detention may continue indefinitely without a neutral risk assessment. The record should address total custody time, the stage of removal proceedings, who caused delay, prior hearing opportunities, and realistic future duration.
The ripeness ruling is equally practical. Lawyers can preserve concerns about unsafe third-country removal, but federal courts generally require a concrete removal posture before issuing an injunction about where or how removal may occur.
Practitioners should also note the decision’s procedural status and preserve the record accordingly. A magistrate judge’s findings require district-court adoption before becoming a final judgment, while a district judge’s order operates immediately unless stayed. In either posture, counsel should calendar objection, compliance, and appeal deadlines; obtain proof of release or hearing; and compare any later government action with the precise statutory authority and safeguards described by the court. These opinions turn on developed facts, so their reasoning should be applied through careful analogy rather than reduced to a universal rule.