Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Addemys N.R., an immigration detainee held at the California City Detention Facility, filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting a prolonged-detention claim. He was arrested in Florida in April 2026 on a charge of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, and has remained detained since. An immigration judge denied bond after hearings in July and August 2026, finding Petitioner both a flight risk and danger to the community; the district court previously upheld that denial. Petitioner appealed the August bond denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and that appeal remains pending. In May 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner's removal; he also appealed that order to the BIA, and that appeal likewise remains pending.
The court had previously ordered the government to provide Petitioner a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. After two such hearings resulted in bond denial and the court affirmed, Petitioner filed the instant amended petition and a traverse arguing his continued detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged. The court noted that Petitioner has been detained for more than six months, but observed that the fact that a period of detention under § 1226(a) extends even far beyond six months does not necessarily mean that it is indefinite.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the first amended petition without prejudice. It held that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and Ninth Circuit precedent establishes that detention authority under that provision is limited to the period reasonably necessary to bring about removal. The mere lack of a certain end date, without more, does not render detention indefinite, and detention extending far beyond six months is not per se unlawful. The court found that Petitioner does not explain why, and nothing in the record suggests, his current detention is not reasonably necessary to effectuate his removal, particularly while his appeals of both the bond denial and the removal order are pending before the BIA.
The court also noted that Petitioner received a bond hearing that afforded him an individualized determination by a neutral decisionmaker of the government's interest in his continued detention. The dismissal does not foreclose Petitioner from filing another petition if he can later show his detention has extended beyond the period reasonably necessary to effectuate removal, nor does it preclude him from requesting another bond hearing before an immigration judge if his circumstances materially change. The Clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment for Respondent.
Key Takeaways
- A prolonged-detention claim under § 1226(a) requires showing that detention is no longer reasonably necessary to effectuate removal, not merely that it has lasted a long time.
- Pending BIA appeals on both the removal order and bond denial weigh heavily against finding that detention has become unreasonably prolonged.
- The court's dismissal without prejudice preserves the petitioner's right to refile if circumstances change or if detention continues beyond what is reasonably necessary for removal.
- The petitioner retains the right to seek a new bond hearing before an immigration judge upon a material change in circumstances under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e).
- The district court reaffirmed its prior determination that the petitioner received a constitutionally adequate bond hearing with an individualized determination by a neutral decisionmaker.
Why It Matters
This decision applies the Ninth Circuit's Prieto-Romero framework to a fact pattern where removal proceedings are actively progressing through the appellate process, clarifying that the pendency of BIA appeals on both removal and bond constitutes a legitimate basis for continued detention under § 1226(a). The ruling reinforces that prolonged-detention claims are fact-specific and that the government's ongoing interest in securing the noncitizen's presence for removal persists while administrative appeals are unresolved.
The without-prejudice dismissal balances the detainee's liberty interest with the practical realities of immigration adjudication, preserving judicial review for future circumstances where detention may become unreasonable. The court's citation to Prieto-Romero's holding that three-plus years of detention under § 1226(a) was lawful underscores the high threshold for establishing a prolonged-detention violation when removal proceedings remain active.