Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Larissa Stela Rocha, a Brazilian national, entered the United States on a B-2 visa in February 2024 and remained after its expiration in February 2025. On August 30, 2026, ICE officers arrested her at an airport pursuant to an I-200 administrative warrant, served a Notice to Appear charging removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(B), and detained her at the California City Detention Facility. She has no criminal history. Rocha filed a § 2241 habeas petition on August 31, 2026, arguing that her detention without pre-deprivation notice or hearing violated Fifth Amendment due process. Respondents moved to dismiss, asserting she is properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not requesting a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge.
The district court withdrew the reference to the assigned magistrate judge in the interest of justice and judicial efficiency. It addressed two primary issues: whether prudential exhaustion bars the petition, and what remedy is appropriate under § 1226(a). The court noted that respondents concede Rocha is entitled to a § 1226(a) custody redetermination hearing. The court also observed that Rocha is in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), and that the government had already made an initial custody determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(b)(1) to detain her pending the outcome of those proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court waived the prudential exhaustion requirement because the relief it would grant—a hearing before an immigration judge at which Rocha's eligibility for bond must be considered—is precisely the relief that prudential exhaustion would require. Citing Chateauneuf v. Chestnut, the court found that requiring exhaustion would be futile where the government already concedes the petitioner's entitlement to a hearing. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss.
On the merits, the court held that Rocha's detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which provides a discretionary detention framework. After an initial custody determination by an immigration officer, the non-citizen may request a bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1), at which the non-citizen bears the burden of establishing they are not a danger or flight risk. The court granted the petition in part, ordering respondents to provide a substantive bond hearing within 14 days, with 72-hour notice, right to counsel, appearance rights, and a recorded proceeding. The court also enjoined re-arrest or re-detention without at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, unless legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without advance notice, in which case a post-deprivation hearing must occur within seven days. The court directed the clerk to close the case and enter judgment for petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- The court waived prudential exhaustion where the government concedes the detainee is entitled to a § 1226(a) bond hearing, making administrative exhaustion futile.
- A non-citizen detained under § 1226(a) after overstaying a visa is entitled to a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1).
- At such a hearing, the detainee bears the burden of proving they are not a danger to the community, a threat to national security, or a flight risk.
- The court ordered specific procedural protections: 72-hour notice, right to counsel, right to appear, and a recorded hearing.
- The injunction against re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing, or prompt post-deprivation hearing, reinforces due process protections for released detainees.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that § 1226(a) detainees have a statutory right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge, and that federal courts may waive prudential exhaustion when the administrative process would merely replicate the relief the court is prepared to order. The detailed procedural requirements—notice, counsel, recording, and anti-re-detention safeguards—provide a template for habeas relief in similar visa-overstay cases in the Eastern District of California.
The order also illustrates how district courts in the Eastern District of California are handling the intersection of § 1226(a) detention and procedural due process claims following the government's concession that a custody redetermination hearing is available. By directing the clerk to close the case and enter judgment for petitioner while simultaneously ordering a future bond hearing, the court treats the habeas remedy as complete upon issuance of the procedural safeguards rather than upon actual release.