Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hermine Avetisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, entered the United States without inspection on October 31, 2022, near San Luis, Arizona. Border Patrol arrested and released her the same day on parole with a Form I-94 as an alternative to detention. She filed an asylum application in February 2023 and obtained approved work authorizations in August 2023 and May 2025. She complied with her parole conditions, lived in the United States with her husband and children, and complied with the law.
On October 6, 2026, Avetisyan reported to an ICE appointment, where she was served with a Notice to Appear and arrested without notice or a hearing. She was transferred to Adelanto Detention Center. The next day, she filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging a single claim of procedural due process violation under the Fifth Amendment and requesting immediate release. On October 15, 2026, the court issued a text-only entry directing respondents to file a notice of appearance within 24 hours if they intended to appear, and otherwise requesting that they file her Form I-213; respondents filed the form, which showed no criminal history, but filed no notice of appearance and no opposition to the petition.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Angela C. C. Viramontes granted the petition. The court emphasized that respondents chose not to oppose Avetisyan's claims or requested relief, and that this choice constituted forfeiture of any arguments they could have made. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent and numerous district court decisions, the court held that petitions should be granted when respondents fail to oppose the primary relief sought. The court also invoked Central District Local Rule 7-12, under which failure to file a required document may be deemed consent to the granting of a motion.
Beyond the forfeiture point, the court pointed to the absence of procedural safeguards accorded to Avetisyan before her re-detention. Given the government's silence and the lack of any notice or hearing preceding her arrest, the court found it appropriate to grant the petition and order her immediate release on the same conditions as before her re-detention. The order required respondents to release her immediately, return all confiscated property, file a compliance statement within three days of release, and ensure that any future enforcement actions comply with due process requirements.
Key Takeaways
- The government forfeited its arguments by choosing not to file any opposition to the habeas petition, and the court treated that silence as a basis for granting relief under Ninth Circuit waiver precedent and Local Rule 7-12.
- The court ordered Avetisyan's immediate release from Adelanto Detention Center on the same parole conditions that existed before her re-detention, rather than ordering a bond hearing or other intermediate relief.
- The decision rested in part on the absence of procedural safeguards—Avetisyan was arrested at a routine ICE appointment without notice or a hearing despite years of compliance with parole conditions and no criminal history.
- The order included forward-looking relief, directing that any future enforcement actions after release must comply with due process requirements, and required the government to file a compliance statement within three days.
Why It Matters
This order adds to a growing body of district court decisions in California and elsewhere granting habeas relief to immigration detainees when the government fails to oppose petitions challenging re-detention without procedural safeguards. It illustrates that the government's litigation choice not to respond can itself be dispositive, effectively conceding the merits of a due process claim.
The case also highlights the vulnerability of long-term parolees who comply with immigration requirements but face sudden re-detention at routine check-ins. By ordering release on prior conditions and imposing prospective due process requirements, the court signaled that re-detention of compliant parolees without notice or a hearing raises serious constitutional concerns even when resolved through forfeiture rather than full merits analysis.