Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Angel Samuel Perez Bac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 20, 2026, while detained by ICE at the Central Valley Annex. He attempted to enter the United States on March 13, 2023, but voluntarily returned to Mexico when encountered by immigration authorities. He later re-entered the United States at an unknown location and was arrested by immigration authorities on August 25, 2026, in Paterson, New Jersey, pursuant to a Form I-200 warrant and issued a Form I-862 Notice to Appear charging him as removable.
Approximately nine days after his arrest, on September 3, 2026, immigration authorities issued Petitioner a Form I-286 Notice of Custody Determination, which he signed and on which he indicated he requested a custody determination before an immigration judge. Respondents acknowledged in their answer that Petitioner seeks a bond hearing and represented that the Immigration Courts were working to schedule that hearing as of October 6, 2026. Petitioner alleged his detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, arguing the Form I-286 provided no individualized explanation for denying release and that the nine-day delay in issuing the custody determination was unconstitutional.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge found the arrest was not arbitrary or punitive, relying on the Form I-213 documenting Petitioner's prior encounter, voluntary departure, unlawful return, and condition at arrest (intoxicated and spitting on people). The court rejected Petitioner's argument that the Form I-286 must contain a narrative explanation for detention, citing Kekelia v. Blanche for the proposition that Form I-213 details suffice. The court also rejected the claim that the nine-day delay in issuing the Form I-286 was unconstitutional, noting the 48-hour regulatory deadline in 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) applies only to warrantless arrests, and Petitioner was arrested pursuant to a warrant.
Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge three-factor test, the Magistrate Judge concluded Petitioner is entitled to a post-deprivation bond hearing. The court distinguished cases ordering immediate release where petitioners had previously been assessed as neither flight risks nor dangers, and where the government claimed mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a) with no custody redetermination. Here, Petitioner had no such prior assessment, is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(a), and has been detained for approximately two months with a bond hearing pending but unscheduled. The court recommended granting the petition and ordering a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days, with specific procedural protections including 72 hours' written notice in a language Petitioner understands, consideration of financial circumstances, and release if the hearing is not held within seven days.
Key Takeaways
- A Form I-213 documenting prior immigration violations and arrest circumstances can support the lawfulness of an initial detention even if the Form I-286 custody determination lacks a narrative explanation.
- The 48-hour custody determination deadline in 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) applies only to warrantless arrests, not arrests pursuant to a warrant.
- Defects in arrest documentation do not warrant immediate release if sufficient grounds for detention exist; the proper remedy is a bond hearing, not discharge.
- Under Mathews v. Eldridge, a noncitizen detained for approximately two months without a bond hearing is entitled to a post-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, even if the government is working to schedule one.
- The court ordered specific procedural safeguards: a bond hearing within seven days, 72 hours' written notice in a comprehensible language, consideration of financial circumstances, and automatic release if the hearing is not held.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that while immigration authorities have broad discretion in initial detention decisions documented via Form I-213, prolonged detention without a bond hearing triggers due process protections under Mathews v. Eldridge. The ruling clarifies that the 48-hour regulatory deadline for custody determinations is inapplicable to warrant-based arrests, narrowing a potential avenue for habeas relief.
By recommending a bond hearing within seven days with specific procedural requirements—including language access, financial consideration, and automatic release for noncompliance—the court provides a concrete framework for addressing unreasonable delays in immigration bond proceedings. The decision also highlights the distinction between challenges to initial detention validity and challenges to prolonged detention, a critical distinction for practitioners litigating immigration detention cases.