Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Adan Abimael Aguilar Moreno alleges he entered the United States as a minor around 2006 and built a life here, including marriage to a U.S. citizen and a U.S. citizen daughter. He held DACA status from November 2014 to October 2023; the government's records show a renewal request that has not been granted. Immigration authorities detained him on July 22, 2025. He alleges he received no immigration arrest warrant at arrest, though the government attached a warrant showing service that day. He was ordered removed on May 15, 2026, and his Board of Immigration Appeals appeal is pending.
He filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a temporary restraining order motion, raising due process, regulatory, statutory and criminal-proceeding claims. He also alleges he cannot attend his pending state criminal case while detained. Respondents did not oppose a ruling on the petition. They agreed he is detained under § 1226(a) but argued he received all process due, alleging he withdrew custody redetermination requests in 2025, an immigration judge declined jurisdiction in December 2025 under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, and a judge denied release in January 2026 on flight-risk grounds. They also noted officers acted after learning of a rape-related arrest the prior month. Petitioner filed no reply.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both requests and found the detention unlawful on three grounds, saying the due process violations alone sufficed. First, relying on its earlier decisions, it reasoned that because the government knew of and approved Petitioner's presence through DACA and took no step to detain him after the status expired, he holds a liberty interest requiring a pre-deprivation bond hearing before detention under § 1226(a). Respondents did not explain why the rape-related arrest prevented such a hearing. Second, he was erroneously held under mandatory detention, with no chance to seek bond, for roughly five to six months because the immigration judge applied Yajure Hurtado, which the Ninth Circuit rejected in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock. A later bond hearing does not cure that.
Third, Respondents attached an arrest warrant but neither alleged nor documented the initial custody determination that § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 236.1 require, which gives notice of the basis for detention and a way to seek review. Joining other district courts, the court held that detention unlawful, with release the remedy, particularly since he was first detained under § 1225 and Respondents now invoke § 1226.
The order requires immediate release without added restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless later found necessary at a custody hearing, and return of his documents and possessions. If the government seeks re-detention, it must provide a prompt bond hearing at which Petitioner bears the burden of showing he is neither a flight risk nor a danger. Related motions were denied as moot, and judgment was entered for Petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- Government knowledge and approval of a person's presence, here through DACA, supported a liberty interest requiring a pre-deprivation bond hearing before § 1226(a) detention.
- The court held that Yajure Hurtado could not justify mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) after Rodriguez Vazquez, and that a delayed bond hearing does not cure the lost opportunity.
- Without evidence of an initial custody determination and notice of the basis for detention, the court treated § 1226(a) detention as unlawful.
- A rape-related arrest did not excuse the missing pre-deprivation process on this record.
- Release was ordered without monitoring conditions, but any re-detention requires a prompt bond hearing with the burden on Petitioner.
Why It Matters
This is a single-case district court order, not binding precedent, but it shows how the Eastern District of California is applying Rodriguez Vazquez and its own earlier liberty-interest rulings to people held at California City. Its reasoning leans mainly on district decisions. It also illustrates that regulatory compliance, such as documenting the initial custody determination, can independently decide a detention case.
Much remains open. The court did not separately decide each of the five claims, including the criminal-proceeding claim. The removal appeal is undecided, and the rape-related allegation drew no finding; any future custody hearing may address danger and flight risk, with the burden on Petitioner.