Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner H.R. G.A., a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in approximately 1986, was convicted in 1996 of carjacking, kidnapping, and rape and sentenced to 31 years and 8 months in state prison. Upon his release from prison on October 3, 2022, ICE arrested him and issued a final administrative removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) based on his aggravated felony conviction. An immigration judge granted him release on bond in May 2023 after finding he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, and an Order of Supervision was issued on June 11, 2024, requiring him to report in person as directed.
On March 6, 2026, Petitioner was re-arrested and detained by ICE when he appeared for a routine check-in appointment. The Notice of Revocation of Release stated his release was revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) for violation of a condition of release. Petitioner filed a habeas petition and later a First Amended Petition challenging his detention on three grounds: violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, violation of the Fourth Amendment, and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act due to ICE's failure to follow the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l). On October 15, 2026, all parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The Court’s Holding
The court first determined that Petitioner's detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), not § 1226(a) as Respondents argued, because Petitioner was subject to a final order of removal. The court emphasized that Respondents failed to meaningfully respond to Petitioner's claims, noting that under the principle of party presentation, courts rely on the parties to frame the issues and do not generate arguments for counseled parties. On the absence of any responsive opposition alone, the court could grant the petition.
The court also held that ICE violated its own regulations in re-detaining Petitioner. Once ICE releases a noncitizen on an Order of Supervision, its ability to re-detain is constrained by its own regulations, which have a constitutional dimension because a released noncitizen has a liberty interest protected under the Fifth Amendment. The revocation of release is governed by 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i), which require notice of the reasons for revocation and an informal interview, and limit the authority to revoke release to specific high-ranking officials.
The court found that the official who revoked Petitioner's release, a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer, was not authorized to do so under Section 241.4(l), which limits revocation authority to an Executive Associate Commissioner or a district director. Respondents conceded this point by failing to offer any evidence or argument that the official had authority or that any delegation provision applied. Because Respondents failed to follow their own regulations, habeas relief was warranted and immediate release was required to meaningfully remedy the regulatory violations. The court granted the First Amended Petition's Third Cause of Action and dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice in light of the relief awarded.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen subject to a final order of removal who is released on supervision has a liberty interest protected by the Fifth Amendment, and ICE's ability to revoke that release is constrained by its own regulations.
- Under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l), only an Executive Associate Commissioner or a district director has authority to revoke supervised release, and a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer does not qualify.
- Courts will not generate arguments for counseled parties, and the government's failure to meaningfully respond to a habeas petition can itself be grounds for granting relief.
- When ICE fails to follow its own regulations in revoking release, the detention is unlawful and immediate release is the appropriate remedy, not merely a new bond hearing.
- The government remains free to re-detain the petitioner in the future, but only in full compliance with federal law and all applicable regulations.
Why It Matters
This decision adds to a growing body of case law in the Central District of California and elsewhere holding that ICE's revocation of supervised release by unauthorized officials violates the agency's own regulations and the Due Process Clause. The court emphasized that the regulatory limitation on revocation authority is not meaningless and ensures that the discretionary decision to revoke supervision is well-founded.
The ruling also underscores the importance of the party presentation principle, making clear that the government cannot prevail on arguments it fails to raise. The court declined to reach Petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim and the broader question of whether additional due process was required at re-detention, leaving those questions for another case, but ordered immediate release, return of confiscated property, and enjoined future re-detention without full regulatory compliance.