Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, identified as Nhat H.L. because the court omitted his full name to protect sensitive personal information, is a noncitizen who, according to the petition, entered the United States without admission around October 12, 2024. Immigration authorities detained him and released him on his own recognizance shortly afterward. The petition states that since then he has lived in the United States, complied with all release conditions, applied for asylum, and has no criminal record. These facts come from the petition.
On September 6, 2026, Petitioner was detained at a scheduled ICE check-in, allegedly without notice or any hearing on his detention. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that his civil immigration detention violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court had already granted a temporary restraining order and ordered his immediate release, and it directed Respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted and judgment entered for him. Respondents acknowledged that his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that he is entitled to a custody hearing, but they made no argument on his constitutional claim. The earlier restraining order is not among the materials reviewed.
The Court’s Holding
In an order signed by Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley on October 9, 2026, the court granted the habeas petition. It found that Petitioner has a protected liberty interest in his continued freedom, which developed during the years he lived freely in the country before this detention. The court reasoned that the interest remains protected by the Due Process Clause even if he is subject to removal or his freedom could be revoked by statute, citing Hernandez v. Sessions and Zadvydas v. Davis.
Considering the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, and relying on the reasons in its earlier restraining order and a similar Eastern District decision, the court concluded that Petitioner was owed notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to determine whether detention was justified. Because he received neither, his detention violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
As relief, the court enjoined Respondents from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner while he is subject to § 1226(a) unless they comply with statutory and constitutional protections. Those protections include at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder. At that hearing Respondents must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the government's interest in protecting the public or ensuring his appearance at future immigration proceedings outweighs his interest in remaining free, such that no alternative to detention can mitigate flight risk. Petitioner may have counsel present. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case, so this is a final judgment on the petition and not a dismissal with leave to amend.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated Petitioner's period of living freely in the country after release on recognizance as creating a protected liberty interest that survives even if he is removable.
- Respondents conceded that § 1226(a) governs and that a custody hearing is required, and the order records no argument from them on the constitutional claim.
- The injunction is prospective and conditional: it does not bar future detention, but requires at least seven days' notice, a neutral factfinder, counsel, and a clear and convincing showing before any re-detention under § 1226(a).
- The order is an unpublished district court ruling that does not decide Petitioner's asylum application or whether he may be removed.
Why It Matters
The order adds to the Eastern District of California rulings requiring process before noncitizens released into the community are detained again under § 1226(a). Its distinctive feature is the specific procedure it imposes: advance notice of at least seven days, a neutral decisionmaker, and a government burden of clear and convincing evidence on its public-protection and appearance interests, with attention to alternatives to detention.
Its reach is limited. It is an unpublished district court order with no binding effect on other courts. The Mathews analysis is largely incorporated by reference to an earlier order, and the relief runs only to this Petitioner. Open questions include the outcome of his asylum application and removal proceedings and whether the government could carry its burden at any future hearing. The order decides no statutory question beyond Respondents' acknowledgment that § 1226(a) applies.