Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Diery Berniece Ruiz Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico born in 2002, entered the United States at approximately four years of age and has resided in California since that time. She obtained an associate's degree from Long Beach City College in 2022 and holds Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protection with a deferred-action period from June 25, 2025, through June 24, 2027. Petitioner asserts that USCIS did not formally terminate her DACA before June 8, 2026. She has a 2025 misdemeanor citation under California Penal Code § 242 that was dismissed after completion of pre-conviction diversion, and a June 2, 2026 arrest for felony assault on a custodial officer under California Penal Code § 241.1.
On June 8, 2026, Petitioner was taken into ICE custody upon release from Burbank City Jail. In a prior habeas action (Ruiz Sandoval v. Mullin, No. 5:26-cv-03859-AYP), this Court granted habeas relief on September 25, 2026, ordering Respondents to release Petitioner or provide an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In that prior action, Respondents conceded Petitioner is a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. Following a custody hearing pursuant to the prior order, an Immigration Judge denied release on the ground that Petitioner presents a flight risk. The current petition, filed October 14, 2026, asserts different claims from the prior petition, alleging that Respondents violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by revoking her liberty without notice and without an opportunity to be heard as to whether she poses a danger or flight risk.
Petitioner consented to proceed before Magistrate Judge Anna Y. Park on October 14, 2026. The Court issued a Notice of General Order 26-05 and Briefing Schedule requiring Respondents to file an Answer within seven days. Respondents did not file an answer or otherwise communicate with the Court. The Court deemed the Petition unopposed and proceeded to rule on the merits based on the uncontroverted record.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ordering Petitioner's immediate release and restoration of liberty to the conditions existing prior to June 8, 2026. The Court held that Petitioner has a protected due process interest in being released, as she has lived in the United States for nearly 20 years and was awarded DACA status, citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2025). Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), balancing test as adapted for immigration detention in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court found all three factors favor Petitioner.
Because Respondents elected not to respond, the record is devoid of any evidence or argument of a significant government interest in detaining Petitioner. The Court concluded that Petitioner's private interest in liberty is substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation under the procedures used is high given the absence of notice and hearing, and the Government has not articulated any countervailing interest. The Court therefore found Petitioner sufficiently alleged a procedural due process claim and that immediate release is warranted.
The Court ordered Respondents to return Petitioner's personal belongings, including all identification, work authorization, and official documents. Respondents must file a "Notice of Release" within three days confirming release and return of belongings. Additionally, Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner absent strict compliance with due process requirements and all applicable statutes and regulations.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen with long-term U.S. residence and DACA status possesses a significant liberty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- When the government fails to respond to a habeas petition challenging immigration detention, the court may deem the petition unopposed and grant relief based on the uncontroverted record.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, as applied in the Ninth Circuit to immigration detention, requires the government to articulate a significant interest to justify detention without adequate process; silence on this factor weighs in favor of release.
- A prior bond hearing denial on flight-risk grounds does not bar a subsequent habeas petition raising distinct procedural due process claims regarding the initial deprivation of liberty.
- Courts may enjoin future re-detention absent strict compliance with due process, providing prospective relief beyond immediate release.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that DACA recipients and long-term residents have robust due process protections against immigration detention without individualized hearings. By granting habeas relief on an unopposed petition, the Court underscored the government's obligation to justify detention with evidence and argument; its failure to do so resulted in a complete victory for the petitioner. The injunction against future re-detention without due process compliance provides a meaningful safeguard against repeated deprivations. The ruling aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent requiring flexible application of Mathews v. Eldridge in immigration contexts and affirms that membership in a certified bond-eligible class (per Maldonado Bautista) strengthens a detainee's procedural due process claim.