Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angelo Edmond, a citizen of Haiti, entered the United States without inspection on December 28, 2020, with his wife and daughter. According to a government record cited in the findings, DHS began removal proceedings and then released him because it could not house him. He remained out of custody for nearly six years, and the record states he had a pending application for temporary protected status. Records also show a dropped 2023 Florida domestic battery by strangulation charge and an August 2, 2026 Florida battery charge that appears to be pending.
ICE detained Edmond on or about August 3, 2026. He is held at the California City Immigration Processing Center without a bond hearing, and removal proceedings remain pending. He petitioned for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 2, 2026, arguing that detention without a hearing violates the Fifth Amendment. The government contended that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs, but acknowledged Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), and conceded he is entitled to a bond hearing. Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney issued these findings and recommendations for the assigned district judge. The district judge's ruling on them is not part of the materials reviewed.
The Court’s Holding
The findings conclude that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs. Under Rodriguez Vazquez, noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior fall under § 1226, and the government did not assert mandatory detention under § 1226(c). The findings then conclude that Edmond, released in December 2020 and at liberty for nearly six years, holds a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, relying on decisions from this district.
Applying Mathews v. Eldridge, which the Ninth Circuit has assumed without deciding applies to immigration detention, the findings weigh every factor for Edmond. His private interest is strong given years of freedom and his pursuit of lawful status. The risk of erroneous deprivation is high because the government identified no changed circumstances, and a post-detention bond hearing would place the burden on Edmond, with no timeline offered. The government's interest is limited because it did not argue danger or flight risk, and a custody hearing imposes minimal cost. The findings note that a government form mentioned a public-safety recommendation and that criminal records were filed, but the government made no explicit representation that either justified re-detention.
The recommended disposition is that the petition be granted and Edmond released immediately with his documents and possessions returned, without additional restrictions unless a future pre-deprivation hearing finds them necessary. The government would be enjoined from re-detaining him without advance notice of the changed circumstances and a timely hearing, with counsel present, at which it must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence even after considering alternatives to detention. The recommendation expressly does not address detention if Edmond becomes subject to an executable final removal order after notice of it. The Clerk would serve the facility with any release order, enter judgment, and close the case. Objections are due within seven days of service.
Key Takeaways
- These are findings and recommendations, not a final order; they bind no one unless the district judge adopts them, and a shortened seven-day objection period applies.
- The findings treat interior arrests of people present without admission as governed by § 1226(a), consistent with Rodriguez Vazquez, even though the government initially invoked § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Long release from custody can create a protected liberty interest, and the findings say re-detention required a pre-deprivation hearing with the burden on the government rather than a later bond hearing.
- Pending criminal charges did not change the outcome here because the government did not tie re-detention to them or claim danger or flight risk.
Why It Matters
The findings add to a line of Eastern and Northern District of California decisions requiring pre-deprivation process before re-detaining people previously released by immigration authorities. They go beyond a bond hearing by proposing a clear and convincing standard borne by the government and a forward-looking injunction against summary re-detention. That remedy is notable because it would operate after release.
The document is unpublished and not yet adopted, so it carries no precedential weight, and its Mathews analysis rests on an assumption the Ninth Circuit has not resolved. Open questions include how the district judge will rule and what process applies if a final removal order issues.