Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eunise Jokebed Centeno Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, filed a verified habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 6, 2026, challenging her immigration detention. Per the petition's allegations, treated as undisputed, she fled political persecution with her then-fifteen-year-old daughter, entered near San Luis, Arizona, on January 1, 2023, and surrendered to Customs and Border Protection. DHS paroled her the next day under INA § 212(d)(5)(A), did not serve a Notice to Appear, and released her with reporting obligations under the Alternatives to Detention program.
The petition alleged that Centeno Rodriguez complied with immigration requirements, settled with her daughter in Los Angeles, filed an affirmative asylum application in January 2024, and received employment authorization valid through December 30, 2029. She had no criminal history. On September 24, 2026, she and her daughter were taken into custody at a scheduled ICE check-in; she alleged she received no notice, reasons, or opportunity to be heard, and that DHS served a Notice to Appear only after detaining her. She was held at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.
The respondents were Joshua Johnson, Warden of the Desert View Facility, and other ICE and DHS officials. Under General Order 26-05 they were ordered to show cause by October 13, 2026, but filed no response; the court construed that failure, with the absence of a U.S. Attorney's Office appearance, as non-opposition and consent under Local Rule 7-12. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge for all purposes.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that release on supervision created a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, because the government's release decision carries an implicit promise that liberty will be revoked only if release conditions are violated. Centeno Rodriguez's lengthy Los Angeles residence, family and community ties, pending asylum application, and employment authorization strengthened that interest. Because she had complied with every requirement, had no criminal history, and was re-detained without notice or a hearing, the court concluded the September 24 detention violated procedural due process.
Release on her prior conditions was necessary to restore the last uncontested status. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found a substantial liberty interest, a high risk of erroneous deprivation given her compliance and clean record, and a low government burden because a bond hearing is routine. It therefore required notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before any re-detention, with the government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that she is a flight risk or danger and that no conditions could reasonably assure appearance and community safety.
Applying eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, the court found irreparable injury, inadequate legal remedies, and a favorable balance of hardships and public interest supporting a limited permanent injunction. Its October 15, 2026 order required immediate release on only the conditions in place before September 24, immediate return of confiscated property and documents, and—before any re-detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226—at least seven days' notice plus a pre-deprivation bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, who must make an individualized bond assessment. Respondents must file a compliance notice within three days after judgment. The court did not award fees outright; it would consider an EAJA application filed within 30 days of final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated parole and supervised release as creating a protected liberty interest that cannot be revoked through re-detention without constitutionally adequate process.
- Immediate release was ordered to restore the petitioner's prior conditions of release, rather than leaving her detained while the government supplied process after the fact.
- Any re-detention of the petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.
- At that hearing, the government must satisfy a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden concerning flight risk, dangerousness, and the inadequacy of release conditions.
- The respondents' non-opposition supported consent to relief, but the court expressly rested its decision on an independent merits analysis as well.
Why It Matters
The decision combines individual habeas relief with a tailored permanent injunction governing future re-detention, distinguishing the remedy for the unconstitutional re-detention from the procedures required before any renewed deprivation of liberty.
The order also leaves a defined procedural matter open: attorney's fees and costs were not decided on the merits, but an EAJA application may be considered if filed within 30 days after final judgment. Respondents separately must document compliance within three days of judgment.