Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
According to the petition, Shahin Abdollahi entered the United States in July 1979, fleeing instability in Iran after the Iranian Revolution, and was initially a lawful permanent resident. After a felony conviction, an immigration judge ordered him removed on January 15, 2014, but he was granted withholding of removal and ultimately released with employment authorization. The petition further alleges that for the past twelve years he has worked steadily and raised and financially supported his United States citizen daughter.
Abdollahi alleges that on October 15, 2026, he attended a check-in with immigration officials and was detained without notice or an opportunity to be heard. He remains in immigration detention, and the government contends it is attempting to remove him to a third country. On October 22, 2026, he filed a habeas petition asserting three grounds: a procedural due process violation from re-detention without notice or a hearing; re-detention in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and a Fifth Amendment and statutory violation arising from third-country removal. He sought immediate release, an injunction barring third-country removal without due process, and declaratory relief.
Respondents received notice of General Order 26-05, which required an answer within seven days, but filed no responsive pleading. As of the November 2, 2026 order, they had not appeared or otherwise defended the case. The order makes no evidentiary findings, so the facts above come from the petition and its exhibits.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth granted the petition on the procedural due process ground. The order recites that noncitizens in the United States are entitled to due process whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent, citing Zadvydas v. Davis. It observes that many, but not all, courts have found that noncitizens released on parole are entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before re-detention, and it collects decisions on both sides. A footnote adds that a growing number of district courts treat a failure to follow release revocation procedures as rendering re-detention unlawful.
The court did not independently resolve that disagreement. Because respondents never appeared, they offered no argument on whether Abdollahi was entitled to notice and a hearing before his release was revoked. The court treated their failure to appear and defend as a concession to the petition and its requested relief. A footnote invokes the party presentation principle from United States v. Sineneng-Smith. Having found relief warranted, the court did not reach the other asserted grounds.
The court ordered that the petition be granted, that Abdollahi be immediately released from immigration detention, and that judgment be entered accordingly. It declined to provide additional relief against a hypothetical future third-country removal without due process. It cited Meza-Hernandez v. Marin for the point that habeas relief should not exceed the petition's claims or rest on speculation about what may happen after release. The order does not separately address declaratory relief or set conditions of release.
Key Takeaways
- The order rests on respondents' failure to appear, which the court treated as a concession, rather than on a contested ruling about what pre-deprivation process is required.
- The court acknowledged that courts are divided on whether noncitizens released on parole must receive a hearing before re-detention, and it adopted no definitive rule.
- Relief was limited to immediate release; the court declined to enjoin possible future third-country removal as hypothetical and beyond the petition's scope.
- The statutory re-detention claim and the third-country removal claims were not reached and remain undecided.
- Failing to answer within the deadline set by General Order 26-05 can result in a habeas petition being granted as unopposed.
Why It Matters
This is a single magistrate judge's order in an unreported district court case, so it carries no binding precedential weight. Its value lies in showing how Central District of California judges are handling re-detention petitions when the government does not respond, and in collecting authority on both sides of the question whether due process requires a hearing before release is revoked.
Because the ruling turns on a concession, it should not be read as holding that the Constitution always requires a pre-deprivation hearing. The order leaves open the lawfulness of any future removal to a third country, the statutory claims, and whether the government may seek to detain Abdollahi again after providing process. It does not address those questions.