Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Govind Lnu entered the United States without admission in 2023 and was first detained by immigration authorities in July 2026. He filed a habeas petition contending that detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The government agreed that Lnu fell under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), which permits an immigration judge to make an individualized custody determination during removal proceedings. Lnu nevertheless rejected a bond hearing as inadequate and asked the district court to order immediate release.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition without prejudice. Under the Ninth Circuit’s recent framework, a noncitizen present without admission and apprehended inside the country is generally detained under section 1226(a), and the prescribed process is an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.
The court distinguished cases involving people whom the government had already released on bond or parole and then re-detained without process. Lnu’s detention was his initial custody determination, so the court concluded that a bond hearing—not immediate release—was the appropriate remedy. Because he expressly declined to seek that relief, the court would not impose it. He remained free to raise the issue again and request the available hearing.
Key Takeaways
- The remedy for an initial section 1226(a) custody decision ordinarily is an immigration bond hearing.
- Immediate-release cases involving revocation of prior parole or bond rest on a materially different liberty interest.
- A habeas petitioner who rejects the remedy the court considers legally appropriate risks dismissal even when entitlement to that process is clear.
- An Administrative Procedure Act claim generally requires final or otherwise reviewable agency action; no custody hearing means there may be no final action to review.
Why It Matters
Immigration lawyers should identify at the outset whether a client’s detention is an initial custody decision or a re-detention after formal release. That factual distinction can control the remedy and should shape both the petition and requested relief.
The decision also counsels against an all-or-nothing litigation position. Requesting a bond hearing in the alternative can preserve meaningful relief even when the court rejects a demand for immediate release, while a categorical refusal may leave the client detained and require a new filing.