Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Amandeep Singh Atwal, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States through Canada without inspection in early 2014 and filed an affirmative asylum application that February. The recommendation recounts numerous DUI and domestic-violence-related convictions, including spousal abuse and protective-order violations. ICE arrested him on January 6, 2026, and the document states that he remained in custody at Golden State Annex Detention Facility. A January 22 Notice to Appear charged him as removable for being present without admission or parole. An immigration judge ordered removal on August 7, 2026; Atwal's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending.
With retained counsel, Atwal filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and a temporary-restraining-order motion on February 24, 2026. He alleged that detention without a bond hearing violated the INA, its regulations, Fifth Amendment due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He sought immediate release or, alternatively, a hearing at which the government would have to prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents argued that his criminal history triggered mandatory detention under § 1226(c) and that he was outside the bond-eligible class in Bautista v. Santacruz.
On March 3, Judge Dale A. Drozd converted the TRO motion into a preliminary-injunction motion and granted it in part. He explained that California Penal Code § 273.5 is divisible and not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude; the record did not show whether Atwal's convictions involved a spouse, cohabitant, or another category. Judge Drozd declined to depart from § 1226(a)'s default regime without sufficient evidence of mandatory detention, ordered a bond hearing within ten days, and denied immediate release without prejudice. An immigration judge held that hearing on March 11 and found danger and flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents later called the petition moot. Atwal alleged inadequate representation at the hearing, but filed no supplemental mootness brief after receiving an extension and after counsel's supported withdrawal motion was granted.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Claire first rejected mootness. Although receiving all requested relief can moot a petition, Judge Drozd had supplied partial interim relief without deciding the merits of Atwal's request for release and had denied immediate release without prejudice. The March hearing therefore did not eliminate the live controversy. The court declined to assess the hearing's efficacy without supplemental briefing, particularly where Atwal's arguments might concern discretionary bond decisions. It also noted his failure to show why unexhausted administrative challenges to that hearing should be excused.
On the merits, the magistrate judge agreed with Atwal's INA claim. She incorporated Judge Drozd's analysis and observed that respondents had supplied no additional criminal-history evidence establishing mandatory detention. She applied Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), which holds that noncitizens present without admission but apprehended in the interior are governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), and remain eligible for bond. Because the government established neither § 1226(c)(1)(B) nor § 1225(b) authority—and did not defend continued detention as lawful under § 1226(a)—the court found that respondents had improperly subjected Atwal to mandatory detention.
The court also found no demonstration that respondents provided § 1226(a)'s procedural protections, including an initial custody determination before or contemporaneously with the January detention. The March bond hearing could not restore the status quo because it followed the deprivation and did not answer the absence of statutory justification and adequate procedures beforehand. Respondents identified no urgent concern preventing a prompt hearing. The magistrate judge recommended immediate release under standard supervision conditions, return of Atwal's documents and possessions, and no additional restriction unless found necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing. She also recommended barring re-detention without seven days' written notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker where respondents bear the clear-and-convincing burden and bond eligibility must be considered. The proposal reserves detention following an executable final removal order with notice, requires a compliance notice within three days after adoption, and recommends case closure. The due process and APA claims were left undecided because they sought the same or similar relief. Objections were due within three days.
Key Takeaways
- A bond hearing supplied under preliminary injunctive relief did not moot Atwal's petition because the district court had not decided the merits of his request for release.
- The government did not establish that Atwal's § 273.5 convictions triggered mandatory detention because the record did not identify the victim category needed for the moral-turpitude analysis.
- Rodriguez Vazquez supported applying § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), to an unadmitted noncitizen apprehended inside the United States.
- The magistrate judge concluded that a later bond hearing could not cure detention begun without the required statutory justification and procedural safeguards.
- The release and re-detention provisions are recommendations, not an operative release order, and they do not resolve detention after an executable final removal order.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies recent Ninth Circuit authority to distinguish interior immigration arrests from border detention and treats the government's failure to prove mandatory-detention prerequisites as consequential. It also explains why interim access to a bond hearing does not necessarily dispose of a habeas challenge to the original detention.
The proposed remedy specifies notice, hearing, burden-of-proof, and supervision conditions for any renewed detention. At the same time, the recommendation leaves the constitutional and APA theories undecided and preserves the separate question of detention following an executable final removal order.