Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Salvador Ramirez-Trejo, a native and citizen of Mexico, filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. Immigration authorities encountered him at the Collier County Jail on April 1, 2026, placed a detainer on him, and took him into ICE custody upon his release from state custody on July 30, 2026. He received a notice to appear dated that day. The court’s account states that he had no prior contacts with immigration authorities, and the government did not allege that he received an arrest warrant or notice of custody determination.
Ramirez-Trejo alleged that he was not offered an initial custody determination or a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. He invoked both the Immigration and Nationality Act and Fifth Amendment due process. The government responded that his detention was lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), that he was entitled only to that section’s procedures, and that he had not requested a custody redetermination hearing. It did not address his allegation that no initial custody determination occurred. The government also did not oppose a direct ruling on the petition, and the court declined to wait for a reply because doing so would delay relief for a pro se petitioner whose requested relief would be granted.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that when the government detains a noncitizen under § 1226(a), Department of Homeland Security officers must make an initial custody determination about whether detention or release is appropriate. Under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8), release requires the officer to be satisfied that the person would not endanger property or persons and is likely to appear for future proceedings. The determination is memorialized on Form I-286, which also supplies a mechanism for requesting immigration-judge review at a custody redetermination hearing. A noncitizen who checks that box or otherwise requests review is entitled to that hearing.
The government attached no notice of custody determination and did not allege that one was issued. Its record’s “CUSTODY DETERMINATION” section merely described Ramirez-Trejo’s location and transfer to ICE custody. The court found that this statement contradicted, rather than supported, an inference that any official assessed dangerousness or likelihood of appearance. Relying on its prior decision in Aguilar Moreno and other district decisions, the court held that detention without the initial determination and an opportunity to demonstrate eligibility for release is unlawful. It further held that denying § 1226(a)’s protections breaches statutory and due-process rights, makes the detention unlawful from the outset, and warrants immediate release.
The court therefore granted both the habeas petition and the temporary-restraining-order motion. It ordered immediate release, barred additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless found necessary at a future custody hearing, required return of documents and possessions, and required a prompt bond hearing if the government seeks to re-detain him, with Ramirez-Trejo bearing the burden of showing that he is not a flight risk or a risk to community safety. A footnote identified an independent basis for relief: no evidence showed an arrest pursuant to a warrant or explained why one could not have been obtained. The in-forma-pauperis and counsel motions and the government’s motion to dismiss were denied as moot, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Ramirez-Trejo and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A custody-redetermination hearing is not a substitute for the government’s obligation to make and document an initial custody determination under § 1226(a).
- The government’s failure to address the missing initial determination or produce the required notice left no record support for a dangerousness or appearance assessment.
- The court treated the procedural failure as both a statutory and due-process violation and selected immediate release as the remedy.
- The order separately identified the absence of evidence supporting an arrest warrant as an independent basis for finding the detention unlawful.
- Any future re-detention must be accompanied by a prompt bond hearing at which the petitioner bears the burden of showing that he is not a flight risk or a risk to community safety, and release cannot automatically be conditioned on electronic monitoring.
Why It Matters
The decision applies a concrete sequence of custody protections: an individualized initial determination, written notice, and an accessible route to immigration-judge review. It places the practical burden on the government to supply a record that those steps occurred rather than relying on a detainee’s failure to request a later bond hearing.
The ruling also distinguishes the operative holding from an additional ground noted in a footnote. The missing initial custody determination drove the judgment, while the absence of warrant evidence independently supported unlawfulness even though Ramirez-Trejo had not raised that issue in his petition.