Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mirna Damariz De Leon Cardona, a national and citizen of Guatemala, was encountered in the United States on or about December 20, 2010 and returned to Mexico. She arrived at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on January 21, 2011, where the Department of Homeland Security detained her, found her inadmissible, processed her for expedited removal, and referred her for a credible fear interview. After a positive credible fear determination, DHS released her on parole on February 28, 2011. She filed for asylum and withholding of removal on May 3, 2011 and, according to the petition, pursued the claim through immigration court for eleven years while maintaining employment authorization. Her two Guatemalan-born children were granted asylum based on the same underlying facts, and her youngest daughter is an eight-year-old U.S. citizen who depends on her as primary caregiver.
The petition alleges that an immigration judge dismissed her removal proceedings without prejudice in July 2022 based on DHS prosecutorial discretion; she appealed because she wanted the asylum claim decided on the merits, but the Board of Immigration Appeals terminated the appeal on May 1, 2025, and no immigration judge, board member, or asylum officer had adjudicated the merits. USCIS acknowledged her asylum application as pending as of May 5, 2011, but it waited in the backlog for more than two years. USCIS scheduled an interview for August 20, 2026, cancelled it, and rescheduled for September 24, 2026; when she appeared at the Tustin asylum office as directed, she was detained without written notice of parole termination, reasons, or a hearing. DHS filed a new Notice to Appear on September 30, 2026, and the petition states she remained detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center at the time of the order.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue granted the petition as to Count One, the procedural due process claim, and dismissed the remaining counts without prejudice. The court ordered Petitioner released within 24 hours under the terms and conditions of her existing release, as if she had not been detained. Respondents had filed neither a notice of appearance nor an answer despite the briefing schedule, and the time to comply had passed, so the petition was deemed unopposed.
The court relied on the party presentation principle, citing United States v. Sineneng-Smith and Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, which describe courts as passive instruments that rely on parties to frame the issues. Respondents' failure to answer forfeited the arguments they could have made, and the court was not required to construct reasons for an absent party. Because Petitioner's claim that her detention was without lawful authority stood unrefuted, and Respondents failed their burden under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 to show cause why the writ should not be granted, the court granted the petition and ordered release, following other courts that granted unopposed habeas petitions in similar circumstances.
The order further requires Respondents to return all of Petitioner's seized personal belongings at the time of release, including identification, work authorization, and other official documents, and to file a status report within three days confirming her release and the return of those items. The court clarified that the order does not provide blanket immunity from future detention, which would likely exceed its jurisdiction, but any future enforcement actions after release must comply with due process requirements.
Key Takeaways
- The government's complete failure to respond to a habeas petition challenging immigration detention resulted in forfeiture of its arguments and required release under the party presentation principle, without the court deciding every claim on the merits.
- The petition was granted only as to Count One; the remaining four counts were dismissed without prejudice, so the merits of those claims were left open rather than adjudicated.
- Petitioner allegedly pursued her asylum claim for years without a merits adjudication, maintained employment authorization, and had two children granted asylum on the same facts, yet was detained when she appeared for a rescheduled asylum interview.
- The court ordered release within 24 hours under the terms of her existing parole, required return of all seized documents including work authorization, and mandated a status report confirming compliance within three days.
- The order expressly does not confer blanket immunity from future detention, but any future enforcement action must comply with due process requirements.
Why It Matters
The decision shows the consequences when the government fails to defend immigration detention in habeas proceedings: the court will not construct arguments for a nonresponsive party, especially where liberty interests are at stake. Its reliance on Sineneng-Smith and Margolin reinforces that unopposed petitions can justify release without a full merits ruling on every claim.
The case also highlights the vulnerability of long-term parolees who comply with requirements but face re-detention without notice or hearing when appearing for scheduled appointments. The release order, return of work authorization and identification, and compliance status report provide a practical template for relief where detention appears to lack lawful authority.