Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ronald Morales-Comapa filed a pro se verified petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 17, 2026, together with a motion for appointment of counsel. The court referred the matter to the Federal Public Defender, which accepted the referral and appeared for him. After the government answered the original petition, Morales-Comapa filed a verified amended petition on September 25. The amended petition asserted procedural and substantive due-process violations, a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and a due-process challenge to the denial of bond; it sought relief including immediate release. The government answered on October 9, and Morales-Comapa replied on October 21.
The amended petition alleged that Morales-Comapa entered the United States without inspection in January 2008 at approximately eighteen years old and had remained in the country, developing family, community, and employment ties in Los Angeles. Immigration authorities apprehended him on May 19, 2026, and transferred him to detention in Adelanto. He raised asylum in removal proceedings, but his asylum claim was denied and a removal order issued on July 21. He appealed, and the order states that no final removal order had issued and that his proceedings and appeal remained pending. The petition alleged that he had been arrested without a warrant and had received neither an initial custody determination nor a custody-redetermination hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted habeas relief on the due-process claim. It first treated the government’s failure to substantively answer the allegations concerning the warrantless arrest and missing initial custody determination as a concession under Local Civil Rule 7-12. It then explained that Section 1226(a) and its regulations generally provide a supervised warrant process, an initial DHS custody determination, immigration-judge review through a bond hearing, administrative appeal, and further review when circumstances materially change. Although DHS’s July 2025 policy treated people arrested in the United States and charged as inadmissible as applicants for admission detained under Section 1225(b), the court stated that the Ninth Circuit’s Rodriguez Vasquez decision placed people like Morales-Comapa under Section 1226(a). It also stated that the final Bautista judgment had preclusive effect for Bond Eligible Class members such as him.
Applying that framework, the court found that detention under Section 1225(b) had deprived Morales-Comapa of all the process due under Section 1226(a): no lawful warrant absent an exception, no prompt initial custody determination, and no immigration-judge or BIA review. It reasoned that a later bond hearing could not substitute for the initial determination establishing a lawful basis for detention. The absence of those safeguards created an unacceptably high risk that detention was unsupported by danger or flight-risk concerns. Because the detention was unlawful from its inception, the court selected release to restore the prior status quo, also citing the government’s continued noncompliance with Bautista despite its appeal.
The order directed entry of judgment granting the petition, issuance of a writ requiring immediate release and return of confiscated property, and an injunction against redetention without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the government must prove flight risk or community danger. Respondents were ordered to confirm release in a status report within two business days. A footnote expressly left the petition’s other claims unaddressed because the due-process ruling made deciding them unnecessary.
Key Takeaways
- The government’s failure to substantively contest the amended petition’s Section 1226(a) allegations was construed as a concession to the due-process claim’s validity.
- The court held that using Section 1225(b) rather than Section 1226(a) deprived Morales-Comapa of warrant, custody-determination, bond-review, and appellate protections.
- It concluded that a subsequent bond hearing cannot replace the initial custody determination that supplies a lawful basis for detention.
- Immediate release, rather than merely another custody hearing, was ordered to restore Morales-Comapa to the position he occupied before the unlawful detention.
- The injunction permits redetention only after notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral arbiter, with the government bearing the burden on flight risk or danger.
Why It Matters
The decision treats the statutory custody-review framework as essential protection against arbitrary immigration detention, not a technical defect curable by offering a later bond hearing. It combines the government’s unanswered allegations, the Ninth Circuit’s detention-authority ruling, and Bautista’s preclusive effect to support both liability and the stronger remedy of release.
The order also imposes concrete compliance and future-detention requirements: immediate release, return of property, a two-business-day status report, and a neutral pre-detention hearing with the government carrying the burden before any redetention. The ruling resolves the case on due-process grounds without deciding the amended petition’s remaining claims.