Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, entered the United States around August 28, 2022, crossing the border at Hidalgo, Texas. Immigration authorities detained and then released him. He lived and worked in Virginia and has a pending asylum application. After an August 2026 arrest by Virginia police on theft-related charges that remain pending, immigration authorities detained him on August 27, 2026 and eventually moved him to the Golden State Annex. By the time of decision he had been held about two months without a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
He filed a habeas petition on October 9, 2026, claiming his civil detention violated Fifth Amendment due process. Respondents argued he is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). They acknowledged, however, that Ninth Circuit authority places him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), makes him eligible for a custody determination hearing, and that he would receive one on request. The court omitted his full name to protect sensitive personal information. This is a district court order resolving one petition, not a published opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition. It rejected the mandatory detention theory, relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez. Under that decision, section 1225(b)(2) reaches noncitizens entering at the border, while people present without admission who are apprehended in the interior face discretionary detention under section 1226(a). It then found a protected liberty interest. The government's earlier release on conditions was an implicit promise against re-detention absent a violation, and Respondents did not claim a violation. Petitioner's years in the country and pursuit of immigration relief strengthened that interest.
Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found a significant private liberty interest. It found a serious likelihood of erroneous deprivation, because Respondents neither claimed danger or flight risk nor argued his arrest triggered mandatory detention. It found a low government interest, because notice and custody hearings are routine processes already required under section 1226(a). The court concluded he was owed notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that Respondents violated due process by not providing them, and that release is the appropriate remedy.
The court ordered immediate release, return of his documents and possessions, and a compliance notice within two court days. While he remains subject to section 1226(a), Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining him without at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder. At that hearing the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring appearance outweighs his liberty interest such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk. He may have counsel present. The court granted in forma pauperis status, denied the restraining order and counsel motions as moot, and directed entry of judgment and closure of the case.
Key Takeaways
- Following Ninth Circuit authority, the court treated a noncitizen apprehended in the interior as subject to discretionary detention under section 1226(a), not mandatory detention under section 1225(b)(2).
- Prior release on conditions, years of residence, and a pending asylum application supported a protected liberty interest in remaining free.
- Detention for about two months without any hearing before a neutral decisionmaker violated due process where the government made no showing of danger or flight risk.
- The remedy was release plus a conditional injunction requiring seven days' notice and a clear-and-convincing-evidence hearing before any re-detention.
- The injunction covers only this Petitioner while he is subject to section 1226(a), and the criminal charges and asylum application remain unresolved.
Why It Matters
This is a single-petitioner district court order, not a published or binding decision. It illustrates how Eastern District of California judges apply the Ninth Circuit's reading of sections 1225(b)(2) and 1226(a) to people re-detained after earlier release. Its notable feature is the remedy: instead of the custody hearing Respondents offered, the court ordered release and imposed a heightened pre-deprivation hearing before any re-detention. The court grounded that burden in Zadvydas and Hernandez v. Sessions along with district court decisions, so its reach beyond this order depends on how other judges treat that reasoning.
The ruling does not decide the pending charges or the asylum claim, and it does not bar future detention if the specified process is provided. Other courts may weigh the Mathews factors differently where the government shows danger or flight risk, which Respondents did not do here.