Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Yovani Abdiel Deleon Rodas, a native of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection, was identified by immigration authorities following his February 2026 conviction for annoying or molesting a minor under California Penal Code § 647.6(a)(1). He had no prior interactions with immigration authorities. On September 13, 2026, ICE officers detained him pursuant to an arrest warrant executed by Senior Deputy Deportation Officer David T. Pham on September 12, 2026. Rodas has remained in custody at the Golden State Annex detention facility since his arrest.
On September 25, 2026, Rodas filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order, alleging arbitrary detention without a valid warrant and a violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights. Respondents opposed, arguing Rodas was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, that he had not requested a custody redetermination hearing, and that he should exhaust administrative remedies. Respondents submitted a record of deportable alien, an arrest warrant showing execution on September 12 and service on September 13, a Notice to Appear (NTA) showing execution and service on September 13, and a notice of custody determination executed and served on September 13. In his reply, Rodas argued the documentation proved his arrest was unlawful because the arrest warrant was executed before the NTA, and the NTA was executed in San Francisco—miles from his arrest in San Rafael—making contemporaneous execution impossible.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) authorizes detention pending a removal decision, but the implementing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(b)(1), permits arrest under that statute only "[a]t the time of issuance of the notice to appear, or at any time thereafter." Citing Mudiyanselage v. Warden Cal. City Det. Facility, Zurita Navarro v. Warden, and Loaeza v. Bausch, the court concluded the plain language requires the NTA to be issued before or contemporaneously with the arrest warrant. Here, the arrest warrant was executed on September 12, Rodas was detained on September 13, and the NTA was executed later on September 13 in San Francisco, while the arrest occurred in San Rafael. The court found the NTA was executed after both the warrant execution and the arrest, rendering the arrest unlawful absent exigent circumstances, which were not alleged.
Accordingly, the court granted the habeas petition and the motion for a temporary restraining order. It ordered Respondents to immediately release Rodas, return all his documents and possessions, and impose no additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless justified at a future custody hearing. If the government seeks to re-detain Rodas, it must provide a prompt bond hearing at which Petitioner shall bear the burden of showing he is not a flight risk or risk to community safety. The court denied the remaining pending motions as moot and directed the Clerk to serve the order on the detention facility and enter judgment for Petitioner. The court noted but did not reach Rodas's alternative argument that the arrest warrant was invalid because the probable cause determination was completed by a different officer after the arrest, observing that the record suggests the same flawed procedure occurred here.
Key Takeaways
- An arrest warrant under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) must be executed after or contemporaneously with the issuance of a Notice to Appear under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(b)(1); an arrest preceding the NTA is unlawful absent exigent circumstances.
- Execution of the NTA in a different city miles away after the arrest fails the requirement that the NTA be issued before or contemporaneously with the arrest warrant.
- Immediate release is the appropriate remedy for an immigration arrest that violates the statutory and regulatory sequence, without requiring the detainee to first exhaust administrative remedies or request a custody redetermination hearing.
- Courts in the Eastern District of California and other districts have consistently applied this plain-language reading of § 1236.1(b)(1) to order release where the NTA post-dates the arrest.
- A warrant completed by an arresting officer after the arrest—where the probable cause determination is made post-hoc—may independently invalidate the warrant, though the court did not reach this issue.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a growing line of district court rulings enforcing the sequential requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(b)(1) as a mandatory precondition to lawful immigration arrest under § 1226(a). By holding that the government cannot arrest first and issue charging documents later, the ruling protects noncitizens from detention that lacks statutory authorization from its inception. The order also signals scrutiny of internal ICE warrant procedures, particularly the practice of having one officer execute a warrant electronically before another officer completes the probable cause determination at the time of arrest.