Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Aaron Isaac Arauz-Medina is a Nicaraguan citizen who reentered the United States in 2021 after being removed. In 2025, immigration officers arrested him, the government reinstated his removal order, and an immigration judge determined he had failed to establish that he would be persecuted if removed to Nicaragua. His appeal of the immigration judge's decision is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.
This Court adjudicated Petitioner's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus and application for a temporary restraining order in December 2025. The Court concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to release but ordered the government to provide him with the process required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(1)—notice and an interview. Petitioner filed his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus and TRO application on October 5, 2026, raising many of the same claims as before. The Court denied the TRO application and deferred ruling on the habeas petition until Petitioner filed his reply, which the Court accepted late and considered.
The Court’s Holding
A district court may grant habeas relief to a petitioner who demonstrates that he is in custody in violation of federal law. For the reasons set forth in the Court's order denying the TRO application, and additional reasons below, Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to habeas relief. The Court had previously rejected Petitioner's claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, and Zadvydas v. Davis.
In reply, Petitioner principally argued that due process warrants relief because he never received the notice or informal interview that the Court ordered after adjudicating his first petition. The government submitted a notice bearing what appears to be Petitioner's acknowledgment signature and an officer's record of an interview, both dated December 17, 2025. Petitioner disputes receiving either. The Court held it need not resolve that factual dispute because compliance with the prior judgment is properly addressed in the earlier action, citing Leonardo v. Crawford for the proposition that a district court has authority to determine compliance with its prior habeas order. The alleged noncompliance does not itself establish an entitlement to release or a bond hearing in this action.
Petitioner separately argued that his approximately 12 months of detention without a bond hearing independently violates due process. The Court held that due process does not establish a categorical entitlement to release or a bond hearing after 12 months. Whether additional process is required depends on the circumstances, including the detainee's liberty interest, the risk of erroneous detention, and the government's interests, citing Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland. Here, Petitioner remains subject to a reinstated final removal order, the government represents that it can promptly remove him if the Ninth Circuit lifts its stay, and his continued detention serves the legitimate purpose of effectuating removal. Petitioner has not established that the administrative custody-review procedures under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 are constitutionally inadequate in his circumstances or that due process requires release or an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. Accordingly, the petition is denied, and a separate judgment will issue.
Key Takeaways
- A detainee's claim that the government failed to comply with a prior habeas order requiring notice and an interview must be raised in the earlier action, not in a new habeas petition.
- Alleged noncompliance with a court-ordered custody-review process does not itself establish an entitlement to release or a bond hearing in a successive habeas action.
- Due process does not categorically require release or a bond hearing after 12 months of immigration detention; the inquiry depends on the detainee's liberty interest, the risk of erroneous detention, and the government's interests.
- Continued detention under a reinstated final removal order serves the legitimate purpose of effectuating removal, particularly where the government represents it can promptly remove the detainee if a stay is lifted.
- Administrative custody-review procedures under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 were not shown to be constitutionally inadequate for a detainee subject to a reinstated removal order with a pending Ninth Circuit appeal.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces that successive habeas petitions cannot be used to enforce compliance with prior court orders; such disputes belong in the original action. It also confirms that there is no bright-line due process right to a bond hearing after 12 months of immigration detention, leaving the analysis to a circumstance-specific balancing under Ninth Circuit precedent.
The decision illustrates the limited role of federal habeas review for detainees with reinstated removal orders whose appeals remain pending, emphasizing that detention tied to effectuating removal remains constitutionally permissible absent a showing that existing administrative procedures are inadequate.