Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Victor Arturo Jimenez Torres, a Mexican citizen born in 2000, was brought to the United States at age five. The government approved his first request for deferred action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy in 2015 and approved later requests in 2017, 2019, 2022, and 2024. He graduated from a local high school, worked, and paid taxes. According to the order, ICE agents arrested him on July 2, 2026, as he was released from county jail in connection with a misdemeanor DUI charge, while a 2025 DACA request was still pending. The order states he has no criminal convictions. Removal proceedings are pending, but no removal order exists.
An immigration judge denied bond on October 5, 2026, in a written order the court called cryptic and conclusory, deeming him a danger and flight risk. His appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals is pending. Torres filed a habeas petition on October 19, 2026; respondents answered on October 27, and he replied on October 28. The order issued the same day. Respondents argued the petition must be denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The Court’s Holding
The court first found jurisdiction. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) would bar review of a challenge to a final removal order, the court concluded it may adjudicate a challenge to detention, citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, Zadvydas v. Davis, and Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Due process reaches noncitizens in the United States and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner under Mathews v. Eldridge.
The court held that because the government knew for more than a decade that Torres lacked lawful status, chose not to detain him, and repeatedly approved his DACA requests, he had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining undetained. It reasoned that, for constitutional purposes, there should be no material difference between a noncitizen previously released from immigration detention and one the government earlier chose not to detain, adopting a Northern District of California decision that called the contrary government position specious. Citing a string of recent decisions involving legally indistinguishable circumstances, it concluded the three Mathews factors compellingly favor Torres, so his arrest and detention violated due process. The order relies on those decisions rather than separately analyzing each factor.
The belated bond hearing, held months after the arrest, did not cure the violation, and an immigration judge's later bond denial cannot support continued detention where the underlying arrest violated due process. A footnote adds that even if only a prompt post-detention hearing had been required, Torres received none. The court rejected exhaustion as a bar: the requirement is prudential, the constitutional claim is outside the authority of the immigration judge and the Board, and continued detention may cause irreparable harm. It ordered judgment granting the petition in part: immediate release on reasonable conditions; a declaration that the detention violated due process; and an injunction against any further detention absent at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is an unacceptable danger or flight risk. The court found Torres had not justified any different or additional relief.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated years of government-approved DACA status, with knowledge of unlawful presence, as creating a protected liberty interest against detention.
- A later bond hearing and immigration judge denial did not cure an arrest the court found unconstitutional.
- Prudential exhaustion was excused because the due process claim is outside the immigration judge's and Board's authority and continued detention could cause irreparable harm.
- Relief was granted only in part: release, a declaration, and an injunction conditioning any re-detention on notice and a hearing with a clear-and-convincing burden on the government.
- This is a single magistrate judge's order, not binding precedent.
Why It Matters
The order joins a large and growing set of recent district court decisions, many from the Central and Eastern Districts of California, that treat the detention of long-tolerated noncitizens as raising due process concerns. As a trial-level order directing entry of judgment, it is persuasive at most and binds only the parties.
Much remains open. The order does not resolve the pending Board of Immigration Appeals bond appeal or the removal proceedings, and it does not decide whether Torres is removable or actually dangerous or a flight risk. It holds only that his detention without proper process was unlawful, and it permits future detention if the specified notice and hearing are provided and the government meets its burden.