Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alondra Jacqueline Ortiz Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States on December 27, 2003, at the San Ysidro Port of Entry and claims to have lived in the country for twenty-five years. On November 22, 2014, she submitted a DACA application and an employment-authorization application, both approved the same day; she re-submitted both forms several times until December 10, 2019, and each was approved. Her DACA status terminated on January 1, 2022, and she filed no immigration applications while she had DACA status or after it ended. Between May 2020 and April 2024 she accumulated over ten criminal convictions and numerous arrests.
On August 28, 2026, ICE arrested her near her home as part of a targeted operation and detained her at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, where she remained in custody. On September 14, 2026, she filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that her re-detention violated procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment and that ICE acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. She requested immediate release and an order barring any re-detention without seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge.
Respondents opposed the petition, arguing that she was properly detained pending a bond hearing as this was her first detention and that she had not exhausted administrative remedies by requesting a bond hearing before the immigration court. While the petition was pending, an immigration judge ordered her removed to Mexico on October 23, 2026. Respondents conceded she was entitled to a bond hearing, and because she received one, the court noted that Respondents' argument that she was merely eligible for a bond hearing was moot.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the habeas petition, rejecting all three claims. On the procedural due process claim, the court acknowledged that noncitizens released from custody can hold a protected liberty interest in remaining at liberty, but found that Petitioner failed to carry her burden of demonstrating such an interest. Because her DACA status terminated on January 1, 2022, and she had no lawful status or pending applications from that date forward, Respondents cannot be said to have deliberately acquiesced to her presence. Without a protected liberty interest, her procedural due process claim failed.
On the substantive due process claim, the court found that her detention of a little over two months was not excessively prolonged compared with periods other courts have found problematic, such as twenty-one months of pretrial detention or thirty months of immigration detention, and she identified no conditions of confinement worse than criminal custody that would suggest the detention was punitive rather than civil. The court therefore concluded that the detention did not violate substantive due process.
Finally, the court held that the Administrative Procedure Act did not apply to her challenge to detention because she properly brought that challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; the APA reaches only agency actions for which there is no other adequate remedy in court, and habeas corpus supplied that remedy here. The court denied the petition in full.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen whose DACA status has lapsed and who has no pending immigration applications may lack a protected liberty interest in remaining free from immigration detention, defeating a procedural due process claim.
- Immigration detention of approximately two months does not constitute punishment in violation of substantive due process absent evidence of excessively prolonged custody or conditions worse than criminal confinement.
- The Administrative Procedure Act does not provide a separate avenue for challenging immigration detention when habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is available.
- A habeas petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the evidence, including the existence of a protected liberty interest.
- Once a detainee receives a bond hearing, the government's argument that she is merely eligible for one becomes moot.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that the termination of DACA status, coupled with the absence of any pending immigration applications, can undermine a claim to a protected liberty interest in remaining free from detention. It reinforces that the government's mere awareness of a noncitizen's presence does not amount to deliberate acquiescence sufficient to create such an interest.
The ruling also confirms that relatively short periods of immigration detention — here, a little over two months — do not approach the constitutional limits of civil detention absent unusually harsh conditions, and it underscores that habeas corpus, not the APA, is the proper vehicle for challenging the fact of immigration detention.