Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Martin Ramirez Salinas, represented by counsel, filed a first amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 12, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The same day he moved for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release. Based on the parties' briefing, the court found that he entered the United States around 1993, has lived in Fresno since 2005, and has no criminal history. An immigration judge closed earlier removal proceedings against him on or about October 6, 2005. ICE detained him on or about October 6, 2026. The next day he signed a Form I-826 accepting voluntary departure. That form lets a person change course and request a hearing in immigration court before departing, and he represents that he has withdrawn his acceptance. The court found no indication that he was ever given an initial custody determination.
The court set a briefing schedule and asked respondents to say whether any law or fact distinguished the case from several prior decisions of the same court. Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies because he never sought a custody redetermination hearing, and alternatively that his detention is lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The parties were amenable to a ruling on the merits on the existing briefing, and the court proceeded that way. Petitioner's claim is that detaining him without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court first waived exhaustion on futility grounds for petitioner's due process challenge to the procedures immigration authorities used, incorporating its earlier reasoning in Ramirez v. Warden of Golden State Annex Detention Facility. On the merits, it observed that courts have concluded that people who are not in removal proceedings are entitled to the same protections as noncitizens in pre-removal-order proceedings, relying on Lima Gamez v. Hernandez. Because petitioner had lived at liberty for more than twenty years without a criminal history after his proceedings were terminated, the court found his interest in remaining free from detention strong. It held that his re-detention without notice and a pre-detention hearing violated due process and that he was entitled to immediate release, citing Yu v. Hernandez.
In a footnote the court rejected respondents' argument that petitioner's acceptance of voluntary departure distinguished the case. It noted that respondents conceded 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs and that nothing showed petitioner received the initial custody determination that section requires. It cited J.T.G. v. Genalo and Ovidio D. v. Bondi, district decisions that reached similar conclusions where § 1226(a) procedures were not followed.
The court granted the petition and ordered respondents to release petitioner immediately. It enjoined respondents from re-detaining him for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without written notice and a hearing before an immigration judge at which respondents bear the burden of showing danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. It denied the motion to dismiss and the motion to lift the do-not-transfer order, and denied the temporary restraining order motion as moot. It denied attorneys' fees without prejudice to renewal on a properly noticed and supported motion. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A court may waive exhaustion as futile when a detainee challenges the constitutionality of the procedures immigration authorities used, as this court did here.
- Long residence at liberty with no criminal record weighed heavily in finding a strong liberty interest against re-detention without notice or a hearing.
- The court was unpersuaded that signing a revocable Form I-826 voluntary departure election changes the analysis where § 1226(a) governs and no initial custody determination was made.
- Any future re-detention requires written notice and an immigration judge hearing, with the government bearing a clear-and-convincing burden, unless exigent circumstances exist.
- Attorneys' fees were denied only without prejudice, so petitioner may renew the request by a properly supported motion.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, so it has persuasive value only. It rests largely on the court's own earlier decisions and on district court rulings from other jurisdictions rather than on binding appellate authority. It is also fact-specific: the relief turned on more than twenty years at liberty, no criminal history, and no initial custody determination.
The order does not decide whether petitioner may be removed. He says he withdrew his voluntary departure acceptance, and the court noted that doing so does not create an alternate removal order, so what immigration proceedings, if any, follow remains open. The injunction does not bar future detention outright; it conditions it on notice and a hearing that places the burden on the government.