Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yennier Velazquez Almaguer, identified by the court as an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, sought a writ of habeas corpus against the Warden of Central Valley Annex and other respondents. On October 19, 2026, the court directed respondents to submit a supplemental response addressing the petition's merits. Their October 30 response argued that Almaguer was entitled to seek a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge.
Claim one concerned a noncitizen who had been paroled into the United States and later re-detained while removal proceedings were pending. The court explained that it had previously addressed the due-process issue in R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, and Ramazan M. v. Andrews. Under those decisions, the Due Process Clause requires a bond hearing at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the noncitizen is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
The court found that respondents offered no new legal arguments and identified no factual or legal issue distinguishing this case from those earlier decisions. It therefore resolved claim one for the reasons addressed in the prior orders rather than setting out a separate extended constitutional analysis.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition as to claim one and ordered respondents to provide Almaguer a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker within ten days of the order. At that hearing, respondents must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community. The decisionmaker must consider his financial circumstances when setting the bond amount and alternative conditions of release instead of detention without bond. If respondents do not provide the hearing within ten days, they must release him.
Respondents must immediately give Almaguer a copy of the order and provide 72 hours' notice before the hearing in a language he can understand. He may be represented by an attorney, and respondents may extend the deadline at his request so he can obtain counsel. If he obtains an attorney, that attorney must also receive 72 hours' notice. Respondents must additionally provide him a copy of the order upon his release.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case, terminate any pending motions as moot, enter judgment for Almaguer, and serve Central Valley Annex with a copy of the order. A footnote expressly left open the circumstances in which respondents may detain him if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal; the grant of relief did not decide that separate situation.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief only as to claim one and grounded that result in its earlier decisions addressing paroled noncitizens who were later re-detained pending removal proceedings.
- Respondents must provide a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker within ten days, and failure to do so requires Almaguer's release.
- The government bears the burden at the hearing of proving flight risk or danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.
- The neutral decisionmaker must consider Almaguer's financial circumstances in setting bond and alternative conditions of release.
- The order provides notice and attorney-related protections but expressly does not decide detention following an executable final order of removal.
Why It Matters
The order applies the court's existing due-process approach to require an individualized bond determination rather than accepting respondents' position that Almaguer could merely seek custody redetermination before an immigration judge. Its requirements address not only the hearing and burden of proof, but also understandable advance notice, access to representation, financial circumstances, and alternatives to detention without bond.
The ten-day deadline and conditional release requirement give the relief a concrete enforcement mechanism. At the same time, the express reservation concerning an executable final removal order limits the decision's scope, and the opinion does not resolve any detention issue arising in that later circumstance.