Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jesus Santamaria Hernandez, a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in May 2022, lived with his wife and three children, the youngest of whom is a U.S. citizen. In May 2025, he was arrested for driving without a valid license and transferred to ICE custody, but the immigration court released him on bond. He was arrested again in February 2026 for driving without a license and transferred back to ICE custody shortly thereafter.
Between his February 2026 arrest and the filing of his habeas petition, the government refused to provide a custody redetermination hearing, asserting that detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). In July 2026, the Ninth Circuit rejected that interpretation in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, holding that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to § 1226, which provides for bond hearings. Petitioner then received a custody redetermination hearing while his habeas petition was pending, but the immigration judge denied bond, finding he posed a danger to the community by operating a motor vehicle without a valid license.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Petitioner had a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody because immigration officials had previously released him on bond, reflecting a finding that he was not a threat or flight risk. Citing Pinchi v. Noem and other district court decisions, the court explained that once ICE releases a noncitizen from custody, that individual has a protected liberty interest in remaining at liberty.
Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found all factors weighed in Petitioner's favor. First, he had a significant private interest in continued release, having lived with his wife and daughter and participated in his community. Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because his release was revoked without any showing of changed circumstances at the time of his arrest and without pre-deprivation notice or hearing. Third, the government's interest was low, as custody hearings are routine and impose minimal cost, and respondents failed to engage with the due process arguments or demonstrate any burden from additional process.
The court granted the petition as to the due process claim and ordered immediate release. It further ordered that the government shall not impose additional restrictions unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation and/or custody hearing, and that if the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which it must show by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger to the community. The order expressly did not address detention in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal, and the Clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment for Petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who have been released on bond by an immigration court have a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, and re-detention without pre-deprivation notice and a hearing violates due process absent a showing of changed circumstances.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge factors weigh strongly against the government when it revokes release without demonstrating changed circumstances at the time of re-arrest, particularly when the individual has been living in the community with family ties.
- A belated bond hearing does not cure the due process violation that occurs when the government fails to provide pre-deprivation notice and a hearing before re-detaining someone previously released on bond.
- The government's interest in detaining individuals without pre-deprivation process is low, especially when custody hearings are routine and impose minimal administrative burden.
- If the government seeks to re-detain after release is ordered, it must provide advance notice and prove by clear and convincing evidence before a neutral arbiter that the individual is a flight risk or danger to the community.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that due process protections apply with full force when the government seeks to re-detain noncitizens who were previously released on bond. It underscores that a prior bond determination creates a protected liberty interest that cannot be extinguished without adequate procedural safeguards, including pre-deprivation notice and a hearing at which the government must justify re-detention based on changed circumstances.
The ruling also demonstrates the practical impact of the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision clarifying that interior apprehensions are governed by § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2), and it shows that even when a noncitizen ultimately receives a bond hearing, the lack of pre-deprivation process can still constitute a constitutional violation warranting habeas relief.