Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mai Thi Bach Tran, a native and citizen of Vietnam, entered the United States approximately thirty-seven years ago and has been subject to a final order of removal since June 1, 2001. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) determined she was not a flight risk and released her in April 2017. She lived outside immigration custody for nine years, during which time she became handicapped. On June 9, 2026, ICE re-detained her despite her assertion that she posed no danger to the community or flight risk, and she remained detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in California.
Tran filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 27, 2026, challenging the lawfulness of her detention and arguing that ICE violated her procedural due process rights because no material change in circumstances justified her re-detention. She consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings. The court issued a notice directing respondents to show cause why the writ should not be granted, but in their answer, respondents stated they were not presenting an opposition argument and that judgment could be entered consistent with expeditious resolution of the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition and ordered Tran's immediate release, relying on the party presentation principle that courts decide cases based on arguments the parties present rather than constructing arguments for them. Citing Supreme Court precedent including United States v. Sineneng-Smith and Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, the court emphasized that judges are neutral arbiters of matters the parties present, not advocates who search for reasons to reject unopposed claims. The court noted that Tran's argument—that her detention without adequate process violated due process—had been accepted by numerous courts in the Ninth Circuit, including prior decisions by the same judge.
The court found that respondents, represented by competent counsel with full access to relevant facts, offered no factual or legal basis to reject Tran's claim, thereby forfeiting any arguments they could have made. Because respondents did not oppose the petition and stated that judgment could be entered in Tran's favor, the court concluded that the petition should be granted based on the failure to oppose the primary relief sought. The court determined that Tran demonstrated the government violated her right to due process by re-detaining her without adequate pre-deprivation process, and it issued a writ of habeas corpus requiring her immediate release under appropriate conditions.
Key Takeaways
- The government's complete failure to oppose a habeas petition challenging immigration detention constitutes forfeiture of any arguments against release and can result in the petition being granted without the court independently evaluating the merits.
- Under the party presentation principle, courts are not required to construct arguments for parties who decline to make them, even in cases involving detention and liberty interests.
- A detainee who was previously released by ICE as not a flight risk and who lived in the community for nine years may successfully challenge re-detention as a due process violation when the government offers no justification for the changed custody decision.
- The court ordered not only immediate release but also required the parties to file a joint status report confirming release within seven days and mandated three days' notice before removing Tran from the jurisdiction.
- Multiple federal courts in California and the Ninth Circuit have granted similar habeas petitions when the government fails to respond to due process challenges to immigration detention.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that the government cannot simply decline to defend immigration detention in habeas proceedings without consequence. By invoking the party presentation principle and forfeiture doctrine, the court placed the burden squarely on respondents to justify detention when challenged, rather than requiring petitioners to overcome arguments the government never made. The ruling also demonstrates that due process protections apply to re-detention decisions, particularly when ICE previously determined a person was not a flight risk and released them for an extended period.
The decision contributes to a growing body of case law in the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit holding that unopposed habeas petitions challenging immigration detention should be granted, especially where the petitioner alleges re-detention without material changed circumstances. The court's requirement of advance notice before removal from the jurisdiction provides an additional procedural safeguard to ensure the petitioner can seek further relief if necessary.