Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dalbir LNU, a citizen of India held in immigration custody at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center and represented by counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 16, 2026. He sought immediate release, alleging that ICE violated his constitutional due process and statutory rights by detaining him without first providing adequate pre-detention notice and process. The same day, the court issued a Notice of General Order 26-05 and Briefing Schedule requiring respondents to file an answer within seven days. Respondents filed no answer and did not otherwise communicate with the court, so the court deemed the petition unopposed.
According to the order, immigration authorities encountered LNU on or about July 12, 2024, and subsequently released him on his own recognizance. After being served a Notice to Appear, he applied for asylum and withholding of removal, and that application remains pending. While traveling to work on August 17, 2026, he was stopped by immigration authorities, asked to provide immigration documentation, taken into custody, and moved to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, where he remained. The court also recited that he has no criminal history, has maintained a stable employment history, and has developed meaningful community ties through employment, religious participation, and relationships with friends and coworkers.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that LNU has a protected due process interest in being released because he has lived in the United States for more than two years and built a life there. It relied on Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), for the principle that the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including noncitizens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. It also cited Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2025), recognizing a substantial private interest in remaining at home, continuing employment, and maintaining community ties.
Because respondents elected not to respond to the petition, the court found the record devoid of any evidence or argument of a significant government interest in detaining LNU. It treated as uncontroverted that he has a significant due process interest in being released, that he has complied with the terms of his prior release, and that he poses no apparent risk of flight or danger to the community. Considering these circumstances and the respondents' non-opposition, the court concluded that immediate release is warranted.
The court granted the petition and ordered respondents to release LNU from immigration custody immediately and to return him to the same release conditions in place prior to his current detention. Respondents must file a Notice of Release within two days of the entry of the order. The court further enjoined respondents from re-detaining him absent strict compliance with the requirements of due process and all applicable statutes and regulations.
Key Takeaways
- An unopposed § 2241 habeas petition resulted in an order requiring LNU's immediate release from immigration custody.
- The court found the record devoid of any evidence or argument establishing a significant government interest in continuing his detention.
- LNU's more than two years of residence in the United States, stable employment, community ties, compliance with his prior release terms, and lack of apparent flight risk or danger supported release.
- Respondents must file a Notice of Release within two days and restore the release conditions in place before his current detention.
- Any re-detention of LNU is enjoined unless respondents strictly comply with due process and all applicable statutes and regulations.
Why It Matters
The order applies due process principles to a noncitizen who had previously been released on his own recognizance and whose asylum and withholding-of-removal applications remain pending. Its analysis was shaped by the respondents' default: the court weighed LNU's private interests against an empty record concerning the government's interest in detention rather than resolving a developed factual dispute.
The relief extends beyond release alone. By restoring the earlier release conditions, requiring a prompt Notice of Release, and enjoining re-detention absent strict compliance with due process and applicable law, the order specifies both the immediate disposition and the constraints governing the respondents' subsequent conduct toward LNU.