Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Alfredo Perez Esteban, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 7, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He entered the United States without inspection in May 2021 and was detained by ICE in Georgia on July 17, 2026, the same day he was served a notice to appear. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Guatemala on September 24, 2026; he reserved his right to appeal, and the appeal deadline had not yet expired. The respondent, the Warden of Central Valley Annex, conceded that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), compelled a finding that petitioner is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), but argued his detention was lawful because he received a bond hearing before an immigration judge who denied release. Respondent further argued petitioner should exhaust administrative remedies by appealing the bond denial.
The court ordered respondent to submit the arrest warrant and initial custody determination. Respondent filed supplemental briefing stating that two requests for these documents were sent to the Department of Homeland Security and forwarded to ICE, but no response had been received. Respondent submitted on its prior pleadings and the Form I-213, which represented that petitioner was issued a notice of custody determination and an I-200 warrant. However, respondent did not provide copies of the actual warrant or initial custody determination, and the documentation did not establish when a warrant was issued or when petitioner received an initial custody determination. Respondent did not oppose the court ruling on the merits of the underlying petition based on the current briefing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that petitioner's detention is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Incorporating its prior reasoning in Zurita Navarro v. Warden, Cent. Valley Annex Det. Facility, the court found that the government must detain a noncitizen pursuant to a warrant issued prior to or contemporaneously with arrest and must provide an initial custody determination prior to or contemporaneously with arrest. The record contained no evidence that petitioner was provided an initial custody determination and arrested pursuant to a warrant in accordance with § 1226(a). The Form I-213's representations were insufficient to establish compliance where the actual documents were not produced.
The court waived the exhaustion requirement, incorporating its reasoning in Ramirez v. Warden of Golden State Annex Det. Facility and citing Giancarlo A.M. v. Cal. City Warden, concluding that waiver is necessary to avoid further irreparable harm and delay in vindicating petitioner's rights. The court ordered respondent to immediately release petitioner on the conditions, if any, he was subject to prior to his detention on July 17, 2026, and enjoined respondent from re-detaining him absent exigent circumstances without providing notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge with the burden set in accordance with § 1226(a). The motion for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The government must produce the actual arrest warrant and initial custody determination to prove lawful detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); a Form I-213 referencing these documents is insufficient without the underlying records.
- Courts in the Eastern District of California will waive the administrative exhaustion requirement in immigration habeas cases where continued detention causes irreparable harm and the government fails to produce required detention documentation.
- A noncitizen subject to § 1226(a) detention is entitled to a warrant issued prior to or contemporaneously with arrest and an initial custody determination provided at or before arrest.
- If the government cannot produce the warrant and initial custody determination, the detention is unlawful and the court will order immediate release with an injunction against re-detention without proper procedures.
- The appeal period for the removal order had not expired, so the removal order was not yet final, but the court based its ruling on the unlawful initial detention under § 1226(a) rather than the removal order's finality.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces procedural protections for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by requiring the government to produce contemporaneous documentary evidence of a warrant and initial custody determination. The court's willingness to waive exhaustion and grant immediate habeas relief when the government fails to produce these documents—despite the pendency of removal proceedings—signals strict enforcement of statutory detention procedures. The ruling aligns with a line of Eastern District of California cases (Zurita Navarro, Ramirez, Giancarlo A.M.) establishing that noncompliance with § 1226(a)'s warrant and custody determination requirements renders detention unlawful ab initio, warranting immediate release regardless of subsequent immigration court proceedings.