Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Palina and Aliaksandra Danilchyk, citizens of Belarus, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 22, 2026, challenging their detention without a bond hearing during immigration proceedings as unduly prolonged in violation of due process. They had been arrested at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on October 5, 2025, received a credible fear interview, and were issued a Notice to Appear on October 25, 2025. After applying for asylum, they received an individual hearing on April 22, 2026, at which their application was denied. Their May 19, 2026 appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending when the district court ruled.
The respondents contested both jurisdiction and the existence of a cognizable due process claim. They argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred review because the detention claims arose from the decision to commence removal proceedings. They also relied on Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam and Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei to contend that arriving aliens could not obtain due process protections beyond those supplied by Congress. The merits were fully briefed before Judge Robert S. Huie in the Southern District of California.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the jurisdictional objection, explaining that Supreme Court precedent confines § 1252(g) to three discrete actions: commencing proceedings, adjudicating cases, and executing removal orders. The petitioners instead challenged the legality and length of their detention and sought release or a bond hearing, not review of removability or relief from removal. The court therefore concluded that their claim was not barred. It also joined the majority of district courts recognizing that prolonged mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), without an individualized bond hearing, can violate due process. Thuraissigiam concerned rights regarding admission, the court reasoned, and did not eliminate constitutional constraints on detention.
The court likewise declined to read Mezei as categorically foreclosing bond hearings for arriving aliens. It distinguished that decision as grounded in exclusion on national-security grounds, noting that no government component had determined that these petitioners should be excluded on such grounds. Applying a six-factor test, the court treated detention exceeding one year as the most important factor favoring relief and found the Otay Mesa Detention Center conditions indistinguishable from penal confinement under prior district decisions. Future detention duration, responsibility for delay, and the likelihood of a final removal order were neutral on this record. On balance, detention had become unreasonably prolonged.
The court granted the petition and directed respondents to arrange bond hearings before an immigration court within seven days, or by a later date requested by the petitioners. At those hearings, the government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence that either petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released. The court expressly declined to order immediate release because the petition did not establish an adequate legal basis for that relief.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge to the length and legality of immigration detention is not necessarily a challenge to the commencement, adjudication, or execution of removal proceedings barred by § 1252(g).
- The court read Thuraissigiam as addressing due process rights concerning admission rather than eliminating an arriving alien's ability to challenge prolonged detention.
- Mezei did not control categorically because this record contained no national-security exclusion determination comparable to the circumstances in that case.
- Detention exceeding one year and conditions resembling penal confinement outweighed the neutral factors in the court's prolonged-detention analysis.
- The remedy was a prompt individualized bond hearing with the government bearing a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden, not automatic release from custody.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to the body of district court authority permitting arriving aliens detained under § 1225(b) to pursue due process challenges to prolonged mandatory detention. It carefully separates review of detention from review of removal proceedings and limits the reach of the government's jurisdictional and constitutional arguments without claiming to resolve every issue left open by higher courts.
Its practical significance lies in the tailored remedy. The petitioners obtained an expedited opportunity for individualized custody determinations and a demanding government burden, while the immigration judge retains the bond decision. The denial of immediate release also underscores that establishing unreasonably prolonged detention does not itself establish an entitlement to release.