Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Galina Titova, a noncitizen, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California challenging her detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She raised four claims: that her detention violated the Fifth Amendment because removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future; two claims challenging removal to a third country; and a claim that her detention violated due process, 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, and the Administrative Procedure Act. ICE had detained her on September 26, 2025, after revoking her prior release.
Alongside the petition, Titova moved to expedite consideration and for a temporary restraining order. Respondents opposed, arguing she was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) as subject to a final removal order, or alternatively under § 1226(c)(1)(E). After the district court flagged conflicting factual assertions, respondents clarified in a supplemental brief that Titova had a pending appeal of the denial of her motion to reopen, not of her removal order.
On March 5, 2026, the district court converted the TRO motion into a preliminary injunction motion and granted it, finding that Titova was detained under § 1231 and that ICE had failed to provide the informal interview required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) and § 241.13(i) before revoking her release. The court ordered her released on the conditions preceding her September 2025 detention and enjoined re-detention for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice, a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge, and a showing by respondents of a change in circumstances justifying re-detention. Titova was released on March 6, 2026; the case was referred to the magistrate judge, and neither party submitted further briefing.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the habeas petition on claim four. Because the record had not changed since the preliminary injunction ruling, the recommendation rests on the same analysis: petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), and she was not afforded the informal interview at which she could respond to the reasons for revoking her release, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l), in violation of due process. Citing Uzzhina v. Chestnut and Truong v. Noem, the court reasoned that when ICE fails to follow its own regulations in revoking release, the detention is unlawful and release must be ordered.
Because the fourth claim provides the relief requested, the court need not reach the remaining claims — the foreseeable-removal due process claim and the third-country removal challenges — citing other district court decisions that have taken the same approach.
The recommendations are: (1) grant the habeas petition; (2) issue a permanent injunction barring re-detention of Titova absent compliance with constitutional protections, including at minimum notice and compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) for revocation of release; and (3) direct the Clerk to enter judgment for petitioner and close the case. The findings go to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); objections are due within seven days of service, responses within seven days thereafter, and failure to object may waive appellate rights under Martinez v. Ylst.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommends granting the § 2241 petition because ICE detained Titova for over five months without the informal interview its regulations require before revoking release.
- The recommendation rests on the finding that ICE's failure to follow 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) and § 241.4(l) in revoking release rendered the detention unlawful, a due process violation.
- The recommended permanent injunction would bar re-detention unless respondents provide notice and comply with the revocation procedures and other applicable requirements.
- Claims one through three — the foreseeable-removal claim and the third-country removal challenges — were not reached because claim four supplied the relief requested.
- The recommendations are not final orders: parties have seven days to file objections before the assigned district judge decides whether to adopt them.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the principle, drawn from Uzzhina v. Chestnut and Truong v. Noem, that when ICE fails to follow its own release-revocation regulations, the resulting detention is unlawful and release must be ordered. It places Titova's case within district court decisions holding that detained noncitizens are entitled to an informal interview and a chance to contest re-detention.
Practically, the case shows how a preliminary injunction record can carry over to a recommended final habeas disposition when the government offers no new briefing, and how a court can grant complete relief on regulatory due process grounds while leaving harder questions — third-country removal limits and indefinite detention — for another day.