Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mahamat Djimet Hassan, who says he fled Chad, entered the United States near Lukeville, Arizona on or around October 8, 2023, and was taken into Department of Homeland Security custody. After a positive credible fear determination on December 8, 2023, he was placed in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. ICE released him on his own recognizance on December 22, 2023, and he then applied for asylum and was authorized to work. On February 2, 2024, he tried to cross into Canada and was returned by Canadian authorities. ICE took him into custody again and released him on recognizance a second time on March 14, 2024. The release order cited section 236 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and required enrollment in an Alternative to Detention (ATD) program, warning that noncompliance would lead to a redetermination of release conditions or arrest and detention.
Government records indicate twenty-two ATD violations between July 2024 and September 2026, including missed biometric check-ins, home visits, office visits, and GPS reporting. These are allegations. The record does not show that Hassan was ever notified of them, and he disputes them. He says the check-in app frequently crashed, that home visits were done by video call and ICE often failed to call on time, that the one GPS failure followed a phone replacement, and that he never missed an in-person office visit. On September 2, 2026, he appeared for a scheduled check-in in Tukwila, Washington, where officers allegedly discovered the violations and approved a custody redetermination. Nothing in the record shows he was told why he was re-detained or allowed to contest the alleged violations. After the court issued an order to show cause, respondents argued that detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) and that the violations defeated any right to a bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition and resolved the temporary restraining order motion as moot. It did not decide whether § 1225 or § 1226 governs, reasoning that because Hassan had been released and lived in the community, he has a liberty interest in continued release under either scheme. Applying Mathews v. Eldridge and its own earlier decisions in similar cases, it found a substantial private interest, a considerable risk of erroneous deprivation without any hearing, and a low government interest in detaining him without process, since safeguards cost little. Hassan was therefore entitled to a hearing at which the government must justify revoking his release.
The court then held that process was required before arrest, not after. A prompt post-deprivation hearing may suffice where urgent arrest is needed or advance notice would be impracticable or prompt flight, but respondents did not argue that and relied instead on mandatory detention. The record did not support it either: Hassan was arrested while attending a check-in, which suggested compliance, and he says he tried to alert ICE to reporting problems. The court saw no reason the government could not have given notice and a hearing first. It ordered immediate release, barred additional restrictions unless found necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing, and permanently enjoined re-arrest or re-detention absent constitutional protections. At a minimum those are pre-deprivation notice of the changed circumstances and a timely hearing, where the government must show danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence and Hassan may have counsel present. The court directed entry of judgment and closed the case.
Key Takeaways
- In this court's view, a noncitizen released on recognizance and living in the community has a protected liberty interest in remaining free, whichever detention statute the government invokes.
- Before re-detaining such a person, the government must generally give notice of the changed circumstances and a hearing, unless it shows pre-deprivation process would be impracticable or would prompt flight.
- The court did not decide whether the twenty-two alleged ATD violations occurred; they remain allegations that Hassan disputes.
- Relief was a release order and a permanent injunction limiting future re-detention, not a ruling that Hassan can never be detained; custody or conditions remain possible if the government meets its burden at a proper hearing.
- Attending a scheduled ICE check-in was treated as evidence of compliance rather than of flight risk.
Why It Matters
This is a single district court order, reasoned largely by reference to the same judge's recent decisions, and it does not bind other courts. It adds to a body of Eastern District of California rulings requiring process before the government revokes release on recognizance.
Open questions remain. The court sidestepped the § 1225 versus § 1226 question and did not resolve the factual dispute over ATD compliance. Beyond setting a clear-and-convincing burden, it did not say what evidence would justify re-detention at a later hearing.