Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Yessica Ornelas Duran, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection and reports living here for at least 31 years. An immigration judge ordered her removed on June 27, 2024. On January 29, 2025, she was called in for a visit, arrested on grounds of a missed required home visit, and removed to Mexico the same day.
On August 20, 2026, ICE learned she was serving a jail sentence in Ventura County and lodged a detainer. It detained her on August 31 or September 1, 2026, and on September 1 served a Form I-871 notice of intent to reinstate her prior order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). She signed it and checked the box declining to make a statement contesting the determination.
After an initial petition was dismissed with leave to amend, Petitioner filed an amended petition. She alleged that re-detention without notice or a hearing violated procedural due process, that detention without a finding of danger or flight risk violated substantive due process, and that ICE acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act. She sought immediate release. Respondents argued that detention was mandatory under § 1231(a) and also cited her criminal history. Petitioner filed no reply.
The Court’s Holding
The court began with the statutes, since the process due depends partly on the detention authority. Section 1226(a) is the default statute for noncitizens in removal proceedings and carries bond hearings. Section 1231(a) applies to those with final removal orders and says the government shall detain them during the 90-day removal period. Citing Johnson v. Guzman Chavez and Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible, the court explained that § 1231 governs detention pending reinstatement and withholding-only proceedings because the reinstated order remains administratively final.
Petitioner did not contest that she is held following reinstatement under § 1231(a)(5). Because ICE detained her and reinstated the order on September 1, 2026, the court held that she is within the 90-day removal period, during which detention is mandatory, and that this forecloses her due process and APA claims. It rejected her contention that ICE had released her on January 29, 2025. She was deported that day, which is not the type of release that courts have found creates a protected liberty interest. The court contrasted two Central District decisions that found due process violations when previously released noncitizens were re-detained.
The undisputed record showed she was re-detained to reinstate her removal order, which answered her claim that ICE acted for no reason. The court denied the petition and stated that a separate judgment would issue. Its analysis did not turn on the criminal history Respondents described.
Key Takeaways
- In this order, detention of a noncitizen after reinstatement of a prior removal order was governed by § 1231(a), under which detention during the 90-day removal period is mandatory.
- That statutory basis defeated the procedural due process, substantive due process, and APA claims on the undisputed record.
- Removal to the home country was not treated as a release from immigration custody that creates a protected liberty interest in avoiding later re-detention.
- The ruling is limited. It did not decide the lawfulness of detention beyond the removal period or any withholding-only proceedings, and Petitioner did not contest the reinstatement or file a reply.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district-court order by a magistrate judge, so it carries no precedential weight and is at most persuasive. It shows how the court separates re-detention cases. Where a noncitizen was released from immigration custody into the community, earlier decisions found due process violations. Where the person was deported and later detained for reinstatement, the court treated the matter as governed by § 1231.
The order rests on an undisputed record in which the detention authority was uncontested. It does not address any challenge to the reinstatement itself, a fear-of-return claim, or prolonged detention. Those questions remain open for future cases.