Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nicolas Ramon Recio Vasallo, a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 27, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be granted, concluding that Vasallo's re-detention violated due process.
The findings and recommendations were served on the parties with notice that objections were due within seven days. On October 29, 2026, the warden filed objections, arguing that Vasallo was mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and was not entitled to due process beyond what Congress authorized in that statute. The district court conducted a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304 before issuing its November 3, 2026 order adopting the findings and recommendations in full.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the warden's objections, finding they failed to meaningfully engage with the magistrate judge's conclusion that the detention violated due process. Relying on its prior decision in Chavarria v. Chestnut, the court explained that the government violates due process when it re-detains a person previously released into the United States without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing, because that person acquired a liberty interest in continued freedom from detention. The court found the record showed Vasallo was re-detained without a pre-detention hearing after having previously been paroled into the United States, and concluded his re-detention violated due process.
The court adopted the October 27, 2026 findings and recommendations in full and granted the habeas petition. It ordered the warden to immediately release Vasallo on the same conditions, if any, that applied before his re-detention on or about August 26, 2026. The court also enjoined and restrained the warden from re-detaining Vasallo for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge at which the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he is a danger or flight risk. The Clerk of Court was directed to serve the Mesa Verde Detention Facility with the order, enter judgment in Vasallo's favor, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Re-detaining a person previously paroled into the United States without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violates due process because the person acquired a liberty interest in continued freedom.
- The court rejected the argument that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) eliminated the petitioner's due process protections, finding the objections did not meaningfully address the due process analysis.
- The warden must immediately release Vasallo on the same conditions, if any, that applied before his re-detention on or about August 26, 2026.
- Absent exigent circumstances, any future re-detention requires notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge, with the government bearing the burden of proving danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full after de novo review and directed entry of judgment for the petitioner and closure of the case.
Why It Matters
The order applies the court's Chavarria reasoning to protect the liberty interest of a person previously paroled into the United States, requiring procedural safeguards before re-detention rather than treating the custody determination as governed solely by the mandatory-detention statute. The decision resulted in immediate release and a forward-looking injunction, not merely a recommendation or remand.
The specified hearing procedure places the burden on the government to establish danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence before an immigration judge. The order also includes an exception for exigent circumstances, while otherwise barring re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing.