Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Oscar Cayetano-Castillo, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection around June 2, 2023.
He has continuously resided in the U.S. since then, has no criminal history, and was working as a products buyer and delivery man in Baltimore, Maryland.
On August 14, 2026, ICE agents were arresting individuals across the street from his workplace.
During the operation, individuals fled toward Petitioner’s workplace with ICE in pursuit.
ICE encountered Petitioner, questioned him, and took him into custody without presenting a Form I-200 Administrative Warrant.
He was transferred to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility.
Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 15, 2026, and an Amended Petition on September 26, 2026, arguing his warrantless arrest was unlawful because ICE lacked a warrant and failed to satisfy the statutory exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) requiring probable cause of unlawful presence and likelihood of escape before a warrant could be obtained.
Respondents argued the petition was moot because Petitioner could request a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered Petitioner’s immediate release.
The Court held that the petition was not moot because a bond hearing under § 1226(a) cannot remedy the statutory violation of an arrest conducted without authority.
The Court waived prudential exhaustion, finding that administrative remedies were inadequate because an immigration judge’s authority at a bond hearing is limited to flight risk and danger to the community, not the lawfulness of the initial arrest.
On the merits, the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) requires a warrant for interior arrests, and the warrantless arrest exception in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) requires both probable cause of unlawful presence and an individualized determination that the alien is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
The record contained no evidence that Petitioner was likely to escape; he had stable employment, residence, and community ties, and ICE was not searching for him.
The Court further held that a post-hoc administrative warrant issued within 48 hours under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) does not cure an arrest that violated § 1357(a)(2) because the regulation presupposes a lawful initial arrest under the statute.
Because the arrest was unlawful, continued detention was unjustified, and immediate release was the appropriate remedy.
Key Takeaways
- A warrantless arrest of a noncitizen in the interior of the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is lawful only if it satisfies the dual requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2): probable cause of unlawful presence and probable cause that the individual is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
- The mere fact that a noncitizen is unlawfully present does not create a presumption that they are likely to escape; the ‘likely to escape’ determination must be individualized and based on facts known at the time of arrest.
- A post-hoc administrative warrant issued within the 48-hour window provided by 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) does not retroactively validate a warrantless arrest that failed to comply with § 1357(a)(2) at the moment of seizure.
- A bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is not an adequate substitute for judicial review of the lawfulness of the initial arrest, because the immigration judge’s authority is limited to flight risk and dangerousness, not statutory arrest authority.
- Prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies may be waived where, as here, the administrative process cannot provide the relief sought—release based on an unlawful arrest.
Why It Matters
The ruling gives California practitioners a concrete example of how federal courts separate the statutory source of immigration detention from the process constitutionally required after release and re-detention.
It also shows why the precise remedy and procedural posture matter: a briefing order, recommendation, bond-hearing order, and final release order have different immediate consequences.
Counsel should preserve the governing custody documents, dates, notices, and evidence concerning danger, flight risk, and removal feasibility.