Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Keylin Carolina Gomez, a 38-year-old native and citizen of Nicaragua, entered the United States approximately three years and nine months before filing her petition. She was paroled into the country on December 19, 2022, with a parole stamp valid until February 17, 2023. After her parole lapsed, she reported to the ICE Los Angeles Field Office as instructed on February 21, 2023. For the next three years and seven months, the government allowed her to remain in the community; she provided ICE with her address and phone number, attended biometrics appointments with USCIS, paid asylum application fees as recently as November 2025, and had no criminal history.
On September 21, 2026, Gomez was ordered to appear at the ICE Los Angeles Field Office, where she was taken into custody without prior notice or a hearing. She has been detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center since that date. On October 13, 2026, she filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging violations of her Fifth Amendment due process rights and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and asserting that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required. The court ordered respondents to file a notice of appearance or produce her Form I-213 by October 22, 2026. Respondents filed the Form I-213, which confirmed she had no criminal history, but did not file an answer or otherwise oppose the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering Gomez's immediate release. The court held that respondents' failure to oppose the petition constituted forfeiture of any arguments they could have raised in support of continued detention, citing Ninth Circuit precedent that issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned. The court further relied on multiple district court decisions granting habeas relief where the government failed to respond to the merits of a petitioner's claims. Local Rule 7-12 of the Central District of California, which permits the court to deem failure to file a required document as consent to the granting of a motion, reinforced this conclusion.
In addition to the procedural default, the court emphasized the absence of procedural safeguards prior to Gomez's re-detention after an extended period of liberty in the community. The court ordered: (1) immediate release of Gomez; (2) return of all property confiscated upon her arrest; (3) a compliance statement filed within three days of release; and (4) that any future enforcement actions comply with due process requirements. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Angela C. C. Viramontes on October 23, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The government's failure to file an opposition to a habeas petition constitutes forfeiture of its defense, allowing the court to grant relief based on the petitioner's unopposed allegations.
- Extended community presence with government knowledge—including regular check-ins, biometrics, and fee payments—combined with sudden re-detention without a hearing raises serious due process concerns.
- A Form I-213 confirming no criminal history, filed without any legal argument for detention, undermines the government's position and supports release.
- Local rules authorizing consent-by-default for missed filing deadlines reinforce the consequence of government inaction in habeas proceedings.
- Courts will order immediate release and property return when the government forfeits its ability to justify detention.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the procedural consequences for the government when it fails to respond to habeas petitions in immigration detention cases. By treating non-opposition as a concession of the petitioner's claims—including constitutional due process violations—the court enforced accountability without reaching the merits of the statutory or constitutional questions. The ruling aligns with a growing body of district court decisions in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere that grant habeas relief where the government defaults, particularly when the petitioner has deep community ties, no criminal history, and was detained without process after years of supervised liberty. The order's requirement that future enforcement comply with due process signals judicial scrutiny of ICE's re-detention practices for individuals previously paroled and monitored.