Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Grigor Amalyan, a native and citizen of the former Soviet Union who became a lawful permanent resident in 1991, was convicted in California state court in May 2023 of assault with a firearm and sentenced to five years in prison. On March 24, 2026, the day he was released from state custody, ICE took him into custody and served a Notice to Appear charging him as removable as a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his detention without an individualized custody hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and seeking immediate release or a hearing at which the government bore the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
Amalyan did not dispute that he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). While the petition was pending, an immigration judge held a custody redetermination hearing on September 28, 2026, at which the Department of Homeland Security bore the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his release would endanger the community; bond was denied, and Amalyan reserved an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals due October 28, 2026. On October 6, 2026, the immigration judge found him removable, denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection, and ordered him removed to Armenia; that order was not yet administratively final, with an appeal due November 5, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Proceeding by consent before a magistrate judge, the court addressed the due process claim on the merits because Amalyan remained detained and sought release, and analyzed it on the premise that he was detained under § 1226(c). Under Demore v. Kim, which upheld mandatory detention for the brief period necessary for removal proceedings, and Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Demore, a detainee may be entitled to an individualized determination if continued detention becomes unreasonable or unjustified; Jennings v. Rodriguez held that § 1226(c) does not itself require periodic bond hearings. The court then rejected each of Amalyan's three arguments. First, although he invoked Singh v. Holder for a hearing with the government bearing the clear-and-convincing burden, the court held it need not decide whether due process required such a hearing because he had already received exactly that hearing on September 28, 2026.
Second, the court rejected his claim that he was entitled to a hearing before detention and that a post-deprivation hearing could not cure the violation: the decisions he relied on involved re-detention after release from immigration custody or detention after a final removal order, and neither applied because ICE took him into custody directly when his criminal sentence ended. Third, the court found no defect in the September hearing: the immigration judge's order expressly placed the clear-and-convincing burden on the government, and Amalyan's disagreement with the danger finding went to the outcome of the hearing, not to whether due process was afforded; his remedy was an appeal to the BIA. Nor had he shown his detention had become unreasonable or unjustified, since he received an individualized custody determination about six months after detention began, a removal decision has since issued, and he identified no delay attributable to the government.
The court therefore denied the petition without prejudice, because Amalyan's detention continues and its basis may change depending on any BIA appeal. His request to enjoin his transfer and his requests for a prompt ruling were denied as moot, and judgment was directed to be entered accordingly.
Key Takeaways
- A detainee who receives the individualized custody hearing he asked the court to order — with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence — cannot establish a due process violation based on the absence of that hearing.
- Decisions involving re-detention after release or detention after a final removal order do not govern a noncitizen taken into ICE custody directly upon completion of a criminal sentence.
- A disagreement with an immigration judge's danger finding goes to the outcome of the hearing, not to whether due process was afforded; the proper challenge is an appeal to the BIA.
- Roughly six months of detention followed by an individualized custody determination and a removal decision, with no government-attributable delay, is not unreasonable or unjustified under Demore.
- A denial without prejudice preserves the detainee's ability to return to court if the basis for his detention changes.
Why It Matters
This order shows how the Central District of California applies Demore and Jennings to as-applied due process challenges to mandatory detention: where a detainee receives an individualized bond hearing with the clear-and-convincing burden on the government during the habeas case, that hearing can defeat the core claim, and attacks on the hearing's outcome rather than its procedures do not state a due process violation. The without-prejudice denial also reflects the interplay between habeas litigation and ongoing removal proceedings, leaving the door open for renewed challenge if the detention's basis or duration changes, while the transfer and prompt-ruling requests fall as moot.