Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aram Misael Hernandez-Ramirez, a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States since about 1989 or 1990, has been in immigration detention since July 6, 2026. He petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a warrantless arrest, the custody procedures that followed, and his continued detention. Respondents answered that he was arrested under an administrative warrant and is entitled at most to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), but no warrant was attached to their answer or in the record.
According to the Form I-213, an immigration judge ordered him removed in absentia in 2006 and later terminated removal proceedings in 2012. The accounts of the 2026 arrest differ. Petitioner says officers arrested him as he left a local jail after an overnight DUI hold and showed no warrant. The Form I-213 says ICE ran a targeted operation beginning around 6:30 a.m. and arrested him at about 12:10 p.m. on public property, and it mentions neither a warrant nor facts suggesting a likelihood of escape. ICE reportedly served a Notice to Appear charging a visa overstay, which he has conceded. The record does not show what happened at an October 15, 2026 master calendar hearing or whether he sought a custody redetermination.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition in part on Count One and issued a conditional writ, without deciding whether a warrant exists. It held that § 1226(a) governs detention of someone charged with overstaying a nonimmigrant admission. Arrest under that section requires a warrant, unless an officer has probable cause to believe the person is unlawfully present and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). The record raised serious questions. But Respondents asserted that a warrant exists, so the court would not resolve that fact against them on the papers or treat the missing exhibit as a default. It excused prudential exhaustion because a bond hearing asks about danger and flight risk, not whether a warrant authorizes custody. If a warrant authorized or later supports custody, a defect in the original arrest would not require release, and the remedy is the custody hearing Respondents concede. If none exists, Respondents have shown no sufficient ground for detention and release is appropriate.
The writ requires Respondents, within three court days, to file any warrant with a declaration of its issuance time and issuing officer, any initial custody determination, and any claim of detention authority other than § 1226(a). If they file neither a warrant nor such a statement, they must release him within 24 hours after the deadline. If they file a warrant only, an immigration judge must hold a custody hearing within seven days of the order, or he must be released. A claim of other authority suspends the deadlines pending further ruling. At the hearing, Petitioner bears the burden by a preponderance of the evidence. The court denied requests for a clear-and-convincing standard, added procedures, declaratory relief, and limits on future detention. It dismissed Counts Two and Three without prejudice and retained jurisdiction to enforce the order.
Key Takeaways
- The writ is conditional: Respondents must file any arrest warrant within three court days, and the court has not found whether a warrant exists.
- Release within 24 hours is required if Respondents file neither a warrant nor a statement of other detention authority, while a warrant alone triggers a custody hearing within seven days.
- Exhaustion was excused only because a bond hearing cannot decide whether a warrant authorizes custody, and the court treated exhaustion as prudential rather than mandatory.
- Counts Two and Three, on the custody-determination regulation and the Fifth Amendment, were dismissed without prejudice and not adjudicated, and Petitioner carries the preponderance burden at any hearing.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's order in a single habeas case. It is unpublished and carries no precedential weight, but it shows how a district court is handling warrantless-arrest claims by ICE detainees. It ties the remedy to a verifiable fact, whether a warrant exists, rather than ordering release or a hearing outright. Following Bilokumsky, it reasons that a defect in the initial arrest does not itself require release when a warrant supports present custody. It declines to follow a contrary Eastern District of California decision to the extent that decision would require release in that situation. It does not reach Mathews due process analysis or rely on a recent District injunction against warrantless arrests.
Open questions include whether a warrant exists and when it issued, whether Respondents assert other detention authority, and whether the custody-determination regulation and the Fifth Amendment were violated. Any challenge to the arrest's effect on removal proceedings belongs before the immigration judge.