Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Rodolfina Vazquez Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States on a B-2 visitor visa on February 9, 2023, and remained beyond her authorized stay. In December 2023, she married a U.S. citizen who filed a Form I-130 petition on her behalf, and she concurrently filed a Form I-485 application for adjustment of status. USCIS accepted both filings and scheduled an adjustment interview for September 16, 2025, at its Santa Ana office. According to a Form I-213, after the conclusion of the USCIS interview, officers from the Los Angeles Foreign Fugitive Unit (FFU)—working with USCIS and the U.S. Marshals Service—entered the room, identified themselves as ICE officers, questioned Rodriguez about her immigration status, and arrested her. DHS subsequently served a Notice to Appear charging removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(B) for overstay.
The government’s custody presentation relied heavily on an alleged Mexican arrest warrant for parental child abduction and Interpol materials, though the Second Amended Petition (SAP) alleges the Orange County Superior Court record reflects only a Hague Convention child-return case and a protective-custody warrant for the child, not a validated Mexican criminal warrant against Rodriguez. An immigration judge denied Rodriguez’s applications for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection on April 10, 2026, and ordered removal; her appeal to the BIA remains pending. Rodriguez filed a habeas petition on March 31, 2026. After the court dismissed her first amended petition without prejudice and granted leave to amend, she filed the SAP on September 19, 2026, asserting two claims: (1) her arrest at the adjustment interview violated 8 U.S.C. § 1255, and (2) her continued detention without a merits custody determination violates the Fifth Amendment. Respondent’s two-sentence response acknowledged that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs detention and that Rodriguez is entitled to a custody redetermination hearing, but did not address the statutory claim under § 1255.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the Second Amended Petition on Claim One and ordering Rodriguez’s immediate release. Relying on the reasoning of Franco v. Meyer, 2025 WL 3280782 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), You v. Nielsen, 321 F. Supp. 3d 451 (S.D.N.Y.
2018), and Ngugi v. Lyons, 2026 WL 946905 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2026), the court concludes that Congress did not intend the adjustment-of-status process to become a mechanism for “gotcha” law enforcement. Arresting an applicant at a USCIS adjustment interview and detaining pursuant to that arrest likely violates the INA, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1255, because it exploits the statutory adjustment process in service of removal. The court declines to address the due process claim (Claim Two) in light of its conclusion on Claim One. The recommendation includes an injunction barring respondents from using the adjustment process to re-detain Rodriguez, including at or near any future interview related to her pending adjustment application.
Key Takeaways
- Arresting an adjustment-of-status applicant at a USCIS interview and detaining them pursuant to that arrest likely violates 8 U.S.C. § 1255, as it perverts the statutory scheme into a ‘bait-and-switch’ enforcement tool.
- The government’s failure to address the statutory claim or distinguish controlling precedent (Franco, You, Ngugi) resulted in a recommendation for immediate habeas relief.
- The court recommended not only release but also a prospective injunction preventing re-detention at or near any future adjustment interview.
- The existence of a foreign arrest warrant and Interpol materials, central to the government’s custody presentation, did not alter the analysis because the arrest itself was deemed statutorily unauthorized.
- The Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation are subject to de novo review by the assigned district judge; parties have 14 days to file objections.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a growing line of authority in the Eastern District of California and the Southern District of New York holding that ICE may not exploit the congressionally created adjustment-of-status process as a trap to apprehend and detain applicants. By treating the arrest at the USCIS interview as a likely violation of the INA itself—rather than merely a due process concern—the court provides a statutory basis for immediate release that bypasses the often-protracted bond hearing process.
The recommended injunction against future re-detention at adjustment interviews offers prospective protection for the petitioner while her adjustment application remains pending. The ruling underscores that the government’s reliance on foreign warrants or Interpol notices does not legitimize an arrest that is fundamentally inconsistent with the statutory framework Congress established for adjustment of status.