Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Esualdo Junior Rodriguez Osorio, a noncitizen, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing it violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act. He entered the United States without inspection on December 11, 2022, was later detained, and was released with an I-94 form pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). On March 25, 2026, he was re-detained when he attended a scheduled ICE check-in appointment.
On April 7, 2026, the district court granted his temporary restraining order motion and ordered his immediate release, finding his prior parole release created a liberty interest in continued release and that the record showed no notice of parole revocation or opportunity to contest it. The court enjoined re-detention absent written notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator, with the government bearing the burden of proving flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner was released April 8, 2026, and on April 22, 2026 the district court granted a preliminary injunction on the same terms and referred the action to the assigned magistrate judge.
Respondents argued petitioner was an 'applicant for admission' subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), while acknowledging the case did not appear distinguishable from prior district court decisions rejecting that argument. They also moved to dismiss all respondents other than petitioner's immediate custodian, the Warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Center.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended granting the habeas petition. After briefing closed, the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), rejecting the § 1225(b)(2) 'applicant for admission' argument and holding that noncitizens present without admission apprehended in the interior are subject to § 1226's detention regime, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). Because the record had not changed since the district court's earlier rulings, the magistrate judge recommended granting the petition based on petitioner's liberty interest from his § 1182(d)(5)(A) release and on respondents' violation of the INA and the Fifth Amendment by re-detaining him without notice of parole revocation, an opportunity to contest it, or a pre-deprivation hearing.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to dismiss non-custodian respondents, reasoning that dismissal of non-custodians is inappropriate where, as in Osoria v. Warden, they were properly joined to permit enjoining future re-detention. The court declined to address petitioner's third claim for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act as an improper habeas claim, noting it may be raised by post-judgment motion.
The recommendations were to grant the petition, deny the motion to dismiss, and issue a permanent injunction barring re-detention unless the government provides written notice of revocation of release and proves by clear and convincing evidence at a constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that petitioner is a flight risk or danger, with counsel permitted present. The injunction expressly does not address detention under other authority such as § 1226(c) or § 1231. Submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with objections due within seven days.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the § 2241 petition on the due process and statutory claims, concluding re-detention after parole release without notice or a hearing violated the INA and the Fifth Amendment.
- The Ninth Circuit's intervening Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock decision defeated the government's argument that petitioner was an 'applicant for admission' subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
- The recommended permanent injunction would bar re-detention unless the government gives written notice of parole revocation and proves flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with counsel present.
- The court recommended denying dismissal of non-custodian respondents because their joinder was proper to allow injunctive relief against future re-detention.
- The Equal Access to Justice Act fee claim was left open for a post-judgment motion rather than decided as a habeas claim.
Why It Matters
This recommendation applies the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision to confirm that noncitizens apprehended in the interior after entry without inspection fall under § 1226's detention framework rather than § 1225(b)(2)'s mandatory detention scheme, and that parole release under § 1182(d)(5)(A) creates a due-process-protected liberty interest. It illustrates how Eastern District of California courts have treated re-detention at ICE check-ins without notice or a hearing as unlawful.
Because these are findings and recommendations, they take effect only if adopted by the assigned district judge, and the parties had seven days to file objections. The recommended injunction is also expressly limited, leaving open the government's ability to detain under other statutory authority such as § 1226(c) or § 1231.