Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Irvin Wilfredo Audon Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States on April 22, 2022, and was apprehended at the border. He was released on conditional parole on May 13, 2022, and filed an asylum application within one year of entry. On September 2, 2025, he was arrested for battery (domestic violence), aggravated trespassing, and false imprisonment. ICE then enrolled him in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, placed an ankle monitor on him, and filed a detainer. On January 8, 2026, ICE agents arrested him at an ISAP check-in and served an administrative warrant.
On March 10, 2026, an immigration judge denied him a bond hearing on jurisdictional grounds. He filed a habeas petition in this court on March 23, 2026, and the parties stipulated to an order granting that petition and a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), entered April 17, 2026. He withdrew his bond request on April 22, 2026; on May 8, 2026, an immigration judge found him a danger and denied bond; on May 22, 2026, he was granted voluntary departure but denied asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection, which he appealed. On July 14, 2026, a Rodriguez hearing ended in another bond denial, this time as a flight risk.
On August 23, 2026, Martinez filed this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contending his detention violates procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act because his conditions of confinement do not comply with the L.T. v. I.C.E. preliminary injunction. He sought immediate release plus declaratory and injunctive relief. Respondents answered on September 1, 2026, and he replied on September 3, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court held it had jurisdiction under § 2241(c)(3) because Martinez challenges the legality of his detention, not the specific immigration actions listed in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), and (g). His substantive due process claim failed on the facts: the record shows he is detained under § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under the Laken Riley Act, and he has received two bond hearings since being detained.
On procedural due process, the court found the record shows he was released on conditional parole, not an order of supervision, but as a conditional parolee he held a protected liberty interest in his release. Applying the three-factor test of Mathews v. Eldridge, the court concluded all factors favored him—his private interest in freedom from detention was extremely high, the risk of erroneous deprivation was significant, and the government's interest in detention without process was minimal—so re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment. However, the § 1226(a) bond hearing he later received, the very relief he sought and stipulated to in the earlier petition, adequately remedied the violation under the particular facts of this case, including the low risk of erroneous deprivation following his arrest.
The court held his third claim, challenging medical care and conditions of confinement under the L.T. injunction and the APA, is not cognizable under § 2241 and must be brought in a civil rights action. The court ordered judgment entered denying the petition without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen released on conditional parole has a protected liberty interest in remaining free from immigration custody.
- Re-detaining a conditional parolee without a pre-deprivation hearing violates procedural due process when all three Mathews v. Eldridge factors favor the detainee.
- A post-deprivation § 1226(a) bond hearing can cure that violation where the petitioner received the hearing he sought and stipulated to and the risk of erroneous deprivation is low.
- A substantive due process claim fails where the detainee is held under § 1226(a) rather than mandatory detention and has received bond hearings.
- Conditions-of-confinement claims, including inadequate medical care, are not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition and belong in a civil rights action.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to the growing body of case law recognizing that noncitizens released on conditional parole acquire a protected liberty interest entitling them to procedural safeguards before re-detention. The court's application of the Mathews factors reinforces that freedom from immigration detention is a core liberty interest and that the government's interest in detaining someone previously found not to be a danger or flight risk is minimal absent materially changed circumstances.
At the same time, the decision illustrates that a procedural due process violation does not automatically require release. Where a detainee receives a post-deprivation bond hearing he previously sought and stipulated to, a court may find the process adequate and deny the habeas petition without prejudice.