Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Bruno Quispe Roberts, a native of Peru, entered the United States without inspection on May 26, 2022, was paroled, and later released on his own recognizance after an immigration judge found he was not a flight risk or danger. He lived in New Jersey, married, had two children, worked, and filed an asylum application. On August 22, 2026, he was arrested on a simple assault charge stemming from a domestic dispute; the charge was later dismissed and expunged. ICE lodged a detainer, arrested him at an ERO appointment on August 25, 2026, and transferred him to Golden State Annex in California. He filed a § 2241 habeas petition challenging his detention without a constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation process. Respondents argued he was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and had failed to exhaust administrative remedies because his counsel withdrew two bond hearing requests.
The court addressed whether prudential exhaustion should be waived and whether the detention violated due process. It found that because Petitioner had previously been released after an immigration judge determined he was not a danger or flight risk, he was entitled to a post-deprivation bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof, citing Pinchi v. Noem and J.S.H.M. v. Wofford. The court concluded the administrative remedy was inadequate and inefficacious, waiving exhaustion. It further held that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock and a line of Eastern District of California cases. However, the court recognized the government's legitimate interest in detention based on the recent law enforcement encounter and determined the appropriate remedy was a post-deprivation bond hearing with the government bearing the burden.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that pursuit of the available administrative remedy—a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge that places the burden of proof on the noncitizen—was inadequate and inefficacious because Petitioner had previously been released after an individualized determination that he was not a danger or flight risk. Relying on Pinchi v. Noem and J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, the court explained that when the government initiates re-detention after such a release, it should bear the burden of proving justification for the re-detention. The court therefore waived the prudential exhaustion requirement. It further concluded that Petitioner's re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock and other Eastern District of California decisions. Nevertheless, the court found that Respondents may have a legitimate interest in detention based on the nature and recency of Petitioner's encounter with law enforcement, and that a criminal conviction is not required before a releasee may be found to have violated the terms of supervision.
The court granted the habeas petition in part, denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot, and ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of service of the order, unless Petitioner consents to a later date. At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond, consistent with Singh v. Holder. If Petitioner is determined not to be a danger or a flight risk requiring detention without bond, the immigration judge should consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release under Hernandez v. Sessions. The court also required at least 72 hours' notice to Petitioner and counsel, the right to counsel and to appear, and directed Respondents to provide a copy of the order to the immigration judge and arrange for the hearing to be recorded. The Clerk was directed to serve the detention facility and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court waived prudential exhaustion because the available administrative bond hearing placed the burden of proof on the noncitizen, which was inadequate where the government had previously determined the individual was not a danger or flight risk and then re-detained him.
- Re-detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) without a pre-deprivation hearing violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause when the noncitizen was previously released after an individualized danger and flight risk determination.
- The proper remedy for such a due process violation is not automatic release but a prompt post-deprivation bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proving flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
- The government may rely on the underlying conduct leading to a criminal arrest—even if charges are dismissed—to justify detention at the bond hearing, but must meet its burden of proof.
- The order imposes specific procedural safeguards: 72-hour notice, right to counsel, right to appear, and a recorded hearing, ensuring the bond hearing is meaningful and compliant with Ninth Circuit precedent.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the due process rights of noncitizens who have been previously released from immigration custody after an individualized determination and are later re-detained. It aligns with a growing body of Eastern District of California case law holding that the government must bear the burden of proof at bond hearings for such individuals, and that prudential exhaustion is waived when the administrative process is structurally inadequate. The ruling provides a clear procedural roadmap for bond hearings that protects liberty interests while allowing the government to justify continued detention based on current evidence.