Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Leisby Alberto Carpio-Guerra, a citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States without inspection on December 20, 2023. Immigration officials detained him upon entry, initiated removal proceedings, and released him on his own recognizance pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. For over two and a half years, Carpio-Guerra complied with all conditions of release: he attended immigration court hearings and ICE check-ins, maintained his address, applied for asylum within one year of entry, obtained an Employment Authorization Document and driver's license, became gainfully employed, and got engaged to a U.S. citizen. He has no criminal history. On June 19, 2026, police in San Antonio, Texas stopped his roommate for a vehicle equipment violation; when Carpio-Guerra arrived to retrieve the vehicle, officers demanded identification and summoned ICE, which detained him at the T.
Don Hutto facility in Taylor, Texas. ICE later transferred him to the Central Valley Annex Facility in McFarland, California. Carpio-Guerra filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Western District of Texas on July 9, 2026, arguing his detention was unlawful because respondents classified it as mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) without providing a meaningful opportunity to seek release. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of California. Respondents argued mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) is facially constitutional and that Carpio-Guerra has no viable due process claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the habeas petition and ordering Carpio-Guerra's immediate release. First, the court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2), governs Carpio-Guerra's detention because he was apprehended in the interior of the United States after being present for over two years, citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026). Second, the court finds Carpio-Guerra has a protected liberty interest in remaining free from detention after his extended release on recognizance, relying on district court precedents including Kaur v. U.S.
Dep't of Homeland Sec., 813 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (E.D. Cal. 2025). Third, applying the Mathews v. Eldridge three-factor test, the court concludes Carpio-Guerra's due process rights were violated by his re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing: (1) his private interest in liberty is strong, having built family, community, and employment ties over two-plus years; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation is high because respondents previously found he was not a flight risk or danger, alleged no changed circumstances, and provided no neutral adjudication before re-detention; and (3) the government's interest is minimal because it articulated no legitimate justification for arrest without a hearing, and the cost of a pre-detention hearing is minimal compared to the cost of detention. The recommendation includes an injunction barring re-detention without pre-deprivation notice and a hearing at which the government bears the burden of proving danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States after extended presence are subject to the discretionary detention regime of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b)(2), per Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock).
- A noncitizen released on recognizance for an extended period develops a protected liberty interest in remaining free from detention, triggering Due Process Clause protections.
- Re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violates due process when the government previously determined the individual was not a flight risk or danger, alleges no changed circumstances, and provides no neutral adjudication before re-arrest.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test favors the detainee where private liberty interests are strong, risk of erroneous deprivation is high, and the government articulates no legitimate interest justifying detention without a hearing.
- The recommended remedy includes immediate release, return of documents, and an injunction requiring pre-deprivation notice and a hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence before any future re-detention.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's holding in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock that interior apprehensions after extended U.S. presence fall under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2), and extends due process protections to noncitizens whom ICE previously released on recognizance. By requiring a pre-deprivation hearing before re-detention, the ruling aligns with a growing body of district court decisions in the Ninth Circuit (Kaur, Pinchi, Doe v.
Becerra, etc.) recognizing that the government cannot circumvent bond hearing requirements by reclassifying detention as mandatory under § 1225(b)(2) after years of discretionary release. The injunction's clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and counsel-right provision set a procedural floor for future re-detentions. The decision leaves open the circumstances under which the government may detain Carpio-Guerra if he becomes subject to a final executable removal order.