Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Edyn Antonio Gomez Obando, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, attempted to enter the United States on January 30, 2022, and was apprehended. He was issued a Notice to Appear in standard removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (INA § 240), not expedited removal proceedings, and the Notice did not designate him as an "arriving alien." Petitioner was released on his own recognizance and subsequently applied for asylum. He was employed as a security guard in Oakland with no disqualifying criminal convictions. On or about March 10, 2026, immigration authorities re-detained petitioner without providing a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to assess danger or flight risk. Petitioner twice sought custody review before immigration judges, but both requests were denied on jurisdictional grounds. Respondents do not contest petitioner's factual allegations.
On January 16, 2026, petitioner filed a verified habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for temporary restraining order, challenging his re-detention without a hearing as a violation of Fifth Amendment due process (claim one) and asserting entitlement to bond consideration under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) as a member of the Maldonado Bautista class (claim two). On January 22, 2026, the district court granted injunctive relief, ordering petitioner's release and enjoining re-detention absent exigent circumstances without written notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator. The district court found analogous and persuasive its prior orders in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, which concluded that due process requires a pre-deprivation hearing to protect a noncitizen's liberty interest in continued release after release on recognizance. Respondents filed a response on July 30, 2026, arguing the petition was moot due to petitioner's release. Petitioner replied on August 31, 2026, and briefing is complete.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the habeas petition on claim one (due process) and issuing a permanent injunction. First, the petition is not moot despite petitioner's release because preliminary relief has not been made permanent or reduced to final judgment. Citing Cruz v. Lyons, Nielsen v. Preap, Rodriguez v. Hayes, and Clark v. Martinez, the Court holds that where ICE retains discretion to re-detain at any time without meaningful substantive limit, the petitioner maintains a live interest in habeas relief. Respondents' reliance on Abdala v. INS is unavailing because petitioner may be re-detained at any time, which constitutes a live interest in habeas relief.
Second, on the merits, the magistrate judge relies on the Ninth Circuit's intervening decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), which held that noncitizens "present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A)." Given Rodriguez Vazquez and the unchanged factual record, the magistrate judge concludes respondents violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by re-detaining him without a predeprivation hearing. The recommendation includes a permanent injunction requiring the government to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence at a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community, with counsel permitted to attend. The magistrate judge need not address claim two (Maldonado Bautista) because the due process claim provides adequate relief, citing Herredia Gurrola v. Cruz and De La Paz Salazar v. Noem.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petition challenging immigration detention is not mooted by preliminary release where the government retains authority to re-detain the petitioner without a hearing.
- Noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States who are present without admission fall under the detention regime of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2)(A), per Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
- Due process requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before the government may re-detain a noncitizen previously released on recognizance, where that release created a liberty interest in continued freedom.
- The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the noncitizen is a flight risk or danger to the community to justify continued physical custody.
- Courts may decline to reach alternative statutory claims (such as Maldonado Bautista class membership) when constitutional due process grounds provide complete relief.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the due process protections for noncitizens who have been released on recognizance and subsequently re-detained without a hearing. By applying Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the magistrate judge confirms that interior apprehensions trigger § 1226's discretionary detention framework with its attendant procedural protections, not the mandatory detention regime of § 1225(b). The recommended permanent injunction establishes a clear standard: the government must meet a clear and convincing evidence burden at a constitutionally adequate hearing before a neutral adjudicator to justify re-detention.
This ruling aligns with a growing line of decisions in the Eastern District of California (Ayala Cajina, O.A.C.S.) recognizing that release on recognizance creates a reliance interest protected by the Fifth Amendment. The mootness analysis is particularly significant for habeas practice, confirming that preliminary injunctive relief does not extinguish the live controversy when the underlying detention authority remains unchallenged and exercisable at the government's discretion. As a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, the ruling is subject to de novo review by the assigned district judge, and the parties have seven days to file objections.