Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Zhengkun Qu and Juan Dai, a married couple who are citizens of China, filed a counseled habeas petition on September 17, 2026, challenging their detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Adelanto, California. According to the petition, they were lawfully admitted on B-2 visas on March 11, 2026, with an authorized stay through September 10, 2026, and timely applied for asylum on August 22, 2026. USCIS then directed them to a biometrics appointment, warning that failure to appear might lead to dismissal of the application.
The petition alleges that when they appeared at the Pomona appointment on September 16, 2026, ICE officers arrested both without any judicial or administrative warrant, with no exigency and no flight risk. They were transferred to Adelanto and, as of their reply, had received no bond hearing. The petition alleges no removal order and no criminal history. These are allegations, not findings. Respondents' September 28 answer did not dispute them or add facts or exhibits. It said only that Petitioners are detained under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) and are entitled to a bond hearing. It spent about half its length on the Maldonado Bautista class action, which the court found inapplicable because that class covers people who entered without inspection.
The Court’s Holding
Judgment issued on October 13, 2026 under the court's October 9 order. It grants Count Three and dismisses the remaining counts without prejudice. The order's reasoning centered on the claim that the warrantless arrests violated 8 U.S.C. section 1357(a)(2), its implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. section 287.8(c)(2)(ii), and an injunction issued in Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin. Citing the party-presentation principle, the court held that Respondents' failure to oppose the claim was itself a basis to grant it, following other Central District decisions.
The court also found the claim meritorious. Section 1357(a)(2) allows an immigration officer to arrest without a warrant only where there is reason to believe the person is in the country unlawfully and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. On the unrefuted allegations, the government itself set the appointment weeks in advance at its own office. It therefore knew where and when to find Petitioners and had no excuse for not obtaining a warrant, and nothing suggested a likelihood of escape.
On remedy, the court ordered Respondents to release Petitioners within 24 hours of entry of the order, under the same conditions that existed before their detention. It reasoned that a belated bond hearing would not cure an unlawful arrest. It declined, for now, to enjoin re-detention absent notice and a hearing, because the petition offered no factual or legal basis for that prospective relief. It confirmed that section 1226(a) governs their detention but did not decide the dismissed counts.
Key Takeaways
- Respondents' failure to oppose a warrantless-arrest claim in their answer was treated as an independent ground for granting habeas relief.
- Under the court's reading of section 1357(a)(2), a warrantless immigration arrest requires reason to believe the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, which is hard to show when the government scheduled the appointment itself.
- The remedy was release within 24 hours rather than a bond hearing, because a bond hearing addresses continued detention, not whether the original arrest was lawful.
- The court refused to bar re-detention at this time, so the order does not by itself prevent future lawful enforcement action.
- The remaining counts were dismissed without prejudice, so they were not decided on the merits.
Why It Matters
This is a district court judgment and order in a single habeas case. It is unreported and carries no precedential weight. Its value is persuasive, as one of several Central District rulings granting release for unopposed or unsupported warrantless immigration arrests. Its facts come from allegations the government did not rebut, so a contested record could change the outcome.
Several matters remain open. Petitioners were ordered released, but the order did not decide the dismissed counts and did not restrict future re-detention. It does not address the merits of the asylum application or any removal proceedings. The materials do not show whether any party sought further review.