Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ramkrishna KC, an immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California. He challenged his continued detention at the California City Detention Facility. According to the magistrate judge's findings, he crossed the border on January 3, 2025, was apprehended by Border Patrol, expressed a credible fear, and was placed in removal proceedings. His asylum application was denied on January 14, 2026, and he was ordered removed to Nepal. His appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was still pending when the magistrate judge ruled. He has been in continuous custody since his arrest and has never received a bond hearing.
Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing that petitioner is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). The matter was referred to a magistrate judge. On August 21, 2026, the magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to dismiss and granting the petition in part, applying the three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test. Respondents objected on September 8, 2026, but only by pointing to their earlier briefing. The district judge's order measures the detention at more than twenty-one months, while the earlier findings had described it as over eighteen months.
The Court’s Holding
After de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis and adopted them in full. It noted that it and numerous other district courts have held that unreasonably prolonged detention under § 1225(b) without a bond hearing violates due process, citing Freitez Lopez, Mohammed, and Banda v. McAleenan as examples. The order does not separately discuss the objections. The adopted findings concluded that all three Mathews factors favored petitioner. His liberty interest was substantial, though somewhat diminished by his removal order and administrative appeal. The risk of erroneous deprivation was high because no one had assessed flight risk or danger. The government's interest in avoiding a bond hearing was modest.
The court granted the petition in part and denied the motion to dismiss. Within fourteen days, respondents must give petitioner a bond hearing before an immigration judge that complies with Singh v. Holder. At that hearing the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denying bond. The judge should also consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Respondents must immediately give him a copy of the order and at least 72 hours' written notice, in a language he understands. He may have an attorney, and respondents may extend the deadline at his request so he can obtain one. An attorney would also receive 72 hours' notice. If no hearing occurs within fourteen days, respondents must release him. The clerk was directed to close the case, enter judgment for petitioner, and terminate remaining motions as moot.
The relief is limited. The court did not order unconditional release and did not decide whether bond should be granted. It also did not address the merits of the removal order or the pending Board appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that more than twenty-one months of detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without any bond hearing violated due process.
- The remedy is an individualized hearing within fourteen days, not release, and the order does not decide whether bond will be granted.
- At the hearing the government bears the burden of clear and convincing evidence on flight risk or danger, and the immigration judge should weigh petitioner's finances and alternatives to detention.
- Release becomes mandatory only if the hearing is not held within fourteen days, and petitioner is entitled to 72 hours' written notice in a language he understands and may be represented by counsel.
- Objections that merely repeated earlier briefing did not change the outcome, and the order rests on the magistrate judge's Mathews analysis.
Why It Matters
The order shows that courts in this district continue to treat prolonged detention of people held as applicants for admission as a constitutional question separate from the statute's detention mandate. The adopted findings acknowledged that the proper test remains unsettled and that months of detention alone are not enough, citing Rodriguez Diaz. The result rested on the combination of long detention, the absence of any bond hearing, and the modest burden of providing one.
The order is an unpublished district court decision that binds only the parties. The adopted findings noted that the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock on July 30, 2026, which respondents had cited in asking to hold the case in abeyance. The order itself does not discuss that decision. Its practical effect is a short deadline for an immigration judge to decide, under a government-burden standard, whether detention can continue.