Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Diogenes Chami Dogirama, a citizen of Panama, entered the United States in September 2020 on a tourist visa that expired on March 10, 2021. The record the court cites indicates that ICE denied his application to extend his stay and that he remained and worked in construction. The petition alleges that on July 28, 2026, ICE agents approached him at an airport gate in Newark, briefly questioned him, handcuffed him, and took him to the Newark ICE office, where he was shown an arrest warrant. He filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of California. He seeks immediate release because, he says, he was detained without a warrant and without a determination that he was an escape risk.
The Government responded that a warrant was issued and that 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) allows warrantless arrests. It also argued that Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a), that he is therefore entitled to a bond hearing, and that he should pursue that administrative remedy first. Petitioner's traverse argues that the warrant was issued after the arrest, that § 1357 requires an escape-risk determination that was not made, and that he seeks release rather than a bond hearing. The court concluded that an evidentiary issue exists that cannot be resolved on the papers.
The Court’s Holding
This is a case-management order, not a ruling on the merits. The court noted that the Government agrees Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a), which allows detention on a warrant issued by the Attorney General. The record does not show when the warrant presented at the Newark office was generated. If ICE obtained it before detaining Petitioner at the gate, his warrantless-detention argument fails. If not, the question becomes whether the arrest was valid under § 1357, which lets ICE officers arrest without a warrant only if they have reason to believe the person is violating immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The court found it unclear whether both requirements were met. It observed that remaining in the country as a removable noncitizen is generally not a crime, so possible removability alone usually does not supply the predicate for an arrest.
The court set an evidentiary hearing for October 23, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 12B. It will take evidence on three questions: whether the Attorney General issued an arrest warrant before Petitioner was detained at the gate; if not, what the arresting officers had reason to believe about his violation of immigration laws; and whether the officers assessed and had reason to believe he was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained.
The court will also hear argument on the proper remedy if the initial arrest was illegal. It cited Ninth Circuit authority stating that defects in an arrest are not cognizable in habeas and that the focus is the legality of present detention. It also cited district decisions saying the remedy for an unlawful arrest is suppression of evidence, not release. It cited contrary decisions that reject that view or find it inapposite where no grounds for detention have been shown. The court did not resolve the conflict, and it did not grant or deny release.
Key Takeaways
- The order decides no merits question. The habeas petition remains pending, and Petitioner remains in custody pending the hearing.
- The timing of the arrest warrant is the threshold factual issue. If the warrant predated the airport detention, the warrantless-arrest theory fails.
- If the arrest was warrantless, the court will examine what the officers had reason to believe about both an immigration violation and the likelihood of escape before a warrant could be obtained. The order does not say which side bears the burden on those questions.
- The court identified conflicting authority on whether an unlawful arrest can support release in habeas. It will hear argument on remedy and has not chosen a side.
- The Government's position that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing was not adopted as a basis to deny the petition. Petitioner says he seeks release, not a bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district court may handle a habeas challenge to an immigration arrest when the papers leave the sequence of events unclear. Rather than rule on a thin record, the court isolates the facts that matter: whether a warrant existed, what officers reasonably believed, and whether they assessed flight risk. It ties those facts to the statutory conditions for warrantless immigration arrests.
The order also shows that the remedy question is unsettled. Authority limiting habeas to the lawfulness of present custody sits against decisions that allow release when the Government cannot justify the detention. The eventual ruling could clarify whether an unlawful initial arrest can matter in habeas once detention is continuing under a warrant. As an order setting a hearing, it carries limited precedential weight.