Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jose Guadalupe Altamirano Ahumada, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States near the Port of Entry in Arizona on April 19, 2024. He was apprehended, processed, and released under the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program. On August 21, 2026, ICE arrested him at a check-in appointment. Respondents contend the arrest followed multiple ATD violations, specifically six missed biometric check-ins and eight Master Zone Leave Alerts. Petitioner disputes those violations. He states that his tracking watch was replaced three times between September 2025 and July 2026, that ICE had permitted travel outside the master zone, and that a brief accidental departure in February 2026 was resolved with an ICE agent.
On October 1, 2026, Petitioner filed an amended habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleged that detaining him without written notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. Respondents conceded that he had previously been released on parole and said they did not oppose an order directing a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court did not take that narrower course. It resolved the case on the constitutional claim and declined to reach the APA claim, while noting that other courts in the district had found APA violations in similar circumstances.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition, concluding that re-detaining Petitioner without notice or a hearing violated due process. It reasoned that a noncitizen released from immigration custody has a protected liberty interest in remaining free. Release carries an implicit promise that liberty will be revoked only for failure to meet release conditions, and it reflects a government determination that the person is neither a flight risk nor a danger. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that all three favored Petitioner.
On the first factor, the liberty interest was significant. On the second, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high, because his parole was revoked without a stated reason or a chance to be heard, and Respondents produced no evidence of materially changed circumstances. The court observed that Respondents did not expressly argue that the alleged ATD violations justified re-detention without process. It held that any such argument would fail, because an ATD violation does not eliminate the obligation to detain in a manner consistent with due process. The court did not resolve whether the alleged violations actually occurred. On the third factor, the government's interest in detaining without notice and a hearing was low, and the cost of providing process was outweighed by the risk of erroneous deprivation.
The court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner immediately, subject only to the conditions of his preexisting parole. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in his favor and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that a noncitizen previously released from immigration custody has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, so re-arrest requires procedural protections.
- Alleged ATD violations, such as missed biometric check-ins and master zone alerts, did not change the Mathews analysis or excuse the lack of notice and a pre-deprivation hearing.
- The court ordered release, subject only to the conditions of the preexisting parole, rather than the bond hearing that Respondents said they would not oppose.
- Because the court rested on due process, it did not decide the APA claim, and it made no finding on whether the alleged ATD violations occurred.
Why It Matters
This is a single unpublished district court order, so it does not bind other courts. Its reasoning follows other district court decisions the court cited, including Pinchi v. Noem, Noori v. LaRose, and E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley. It also reflects a recurring approach in this district of ordering release, rather than only a later hearing, where re-detention occurred without process.
Several questions remain open. The order does not decide whether the government could lawfully re-detain Petitioner in the future after providing notice and a hearing. The court cited authority that the government may take steps toward re-arrest, but that its interest in doing so without a hearing is low. The order also does not address the APA theory or resolve the factual dispute over ATD compliance.