Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ankit Ankit, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States without inspection on or about March 12, 2022, and was apprehended and detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection shortly thereafter. On March 22, 2022, CBP released him from immigration detention on his own recognizance. The Department of Homeland Security later served him with a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable and directing him to appear before an Immigration Judge. He filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal in December 2022.
While awaiting adjudication of his asylum application, Ankit obtained and maintained lawful employment authorization, paid taxes, was never arrested, never missed any appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or any other agency, and complied with all terms of his conditional parole. On September 3, 2026, DHS arrested him without notice and without a hearing. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 21, 2026, raising four claims: substantive due process, procedural due process, violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and related regulations. He sought immediate release.
On October 2, 2026, the court issued a text-only entry noting that Respondents had not filed a notice of appearance and directing them to do so within 24 hours or, if they did not intend to appear, to file Ankit's Form I-213 by October 6, 2026. Respondents filed the Form I-213 on October 6, which showed that Ankit had no criminal history. Respondents never filed an opposition to the petition.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Angela C. C. Viramontes granted the habeas corpus petition. The court explained that federal district courts have authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to grant habeas relief to a person held in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody. The petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
The court found that Respondents' decision not to oppose the petition 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 noted that Local Rule 7-12 of the Central District of California provides that failure to file a required document may be deemed consent to the granting of the motion.
Given Respondents' choice not to file an answer and the absence of procedural safeguards accorded to Ankit before his re-detention, the court found it appropriate to grant the petition and order his immediate release on the same conditions as before his re-detention. The court ordered Respondents to release Ankit immediately, return all confiscated property, file a compliance statement within three days of his release, and ensure that any future enforcement actions comply with due process requirements.
Key Takeaways
- A federal court granted a habeas corpus petition and ordered the immediate release of an immigration detainee who was re-detained without notice or a hearing after more than four years of compliance with release conditions.
- The government's failure to file any opposition to a habeas petition constitutes forfeiture of its arguments and may be deemed consent to the granting of relief under local rules.
- The detainee had no criminal history, maintained employment authorization, paid taxes, and complied with all terms of his conditional parole before being arrested without procedural safeguards.
- The court ordered the government to return all confiscated property, file a compliance statement within three days, and ensure future enforcement actions comply with due process.
- The decision relied on Ninth Circuit precedent and a growing body of district court cases granting unopposed habeas petitions in immigration detention cases.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the procedural protections owed to immigration detainees, particularly those who have demonstrated sustained compliance with the terms of their release. The court's reliance on the government's forfeiture highlights the consequences of failing to oppose habeas petitions, even in cases involving significant liberty interests.
The ruling adds to a developing line of cases in which federal courts have granted habeas relief to immigration detainees who were re-detained without adequate procedural safeguards, reinforcing the principle that due process protections apply to non-citizens in immigration proceedings.