Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Wilfer Orlando B.C., a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection, was granted DACA status that expired in June 2026. He has been charged with several crimes over the years, including leaving the scene of an accident (2008), domestic assault and witness intimidation (2022), a compulsory insurance violation (2024), and negligent operation, malicious destruction of property, and assault and battery (2026), but all charges were dismissed and he has no convictions. On July 13, 2026, ICE detained him at a Boston courthouse after state authorities released him and served a Notice to Appear. He was transferred to Central Valley Annex Detention Facility and then to California City Detention Facility. On September 25, 2026, he filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the lawfulness of his civil detention.
The government opposed the petition, arguing Petitioner is an 'applicant for admission' subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court noted the pro se petition appeared to be missing pages but liberally construed it to raise a Fifth Amendment due process challenge. The court also sua sponte added the warden of California City Detention Facility as a respondent after Petitioner was transferred there, citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla for the proposition that the court retains jurisdiction when the government moves a habeas petitioner.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition and ordered Petitioner's immediate release. It held that Petitioner possesses a protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, which applies to all persons within the United States regardless of immigration status. The court rejected the government's reliance on § 1225(b) mandatory detention, following Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock (2026) that § 1225(b) applies only to noncitizens entering at the border, not to individuals like Petitioner apprehended in the interior, who are subject to discretionary detention under § 1226(a). The government's prior decision to parole Petitioner and allow him to remain in the community for years further strengthened his liberty interest.
Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found all three factors favored Petitioner: (1) his private interest in liberty is substantial, underscored by years spent at liberty; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation is high because he received no procedural safeguards—most critically, the initial bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to which he is entitled by statute under Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland (9th Cir. 2022)—and the government relied on dismissed charges and arrests without convictions; and (3) the government's interest in detaining him without process is low, as bond hearings are routine and any administrative burden does not outweigh his liberty interest. The court enjoined re-detention under § 1226(a) absent seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing where the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that detention is justified.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States are not 'applicants for admission' subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b); they fall under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and are entitled to a bond hearing.
- The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause protects the liberty interest of all persons within the United States, including noncitizens with expired or no lawful status.
- Detention based on dismissed criminal charges or arrests without convictions raises serious due process concerns and cannot justify prolonged detention without a hearing.
- The government must provide notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before detaining a noncitizen under § 1226(a), and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention is necessary.
- A district court retains habeas jurisdiction over a petitioner transferred to a different detention facility and may add the new custodian as a respondent.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's interpretation in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock that the mandatory detention authority of § 1225(b) is geographically limited to border entrants, protecting interior-arrested noncitizens from indefinite detention without individualized bond hearings. The ruling applies the Mathews v. Eldridge framework to immigration detention, requiring the government to justify detention with clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation hearing. It also affirms that the government's prior exercise of discretion to parole and release a noncitizen into the community creates a strengthened liberty interest that cannot be extinguished without due process. The injunction against re-detention without procedural safeguards provides a template for future cases challenging detention under § 1226(a).