Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Alejandro Rodriguez Ramos, a native of Mexico, was detained by immigration authorities on September 2, 2026. At the time of his arrest, he was served with a notice to appear, an arrest warrant, and a notice of custody determination. On the notice of custody determination, Petitioner checked the box requesting an immigration judge review of the custody determination, a request dated September 2, 2026. As of October 16, 2026, when Respondent filed its opposition, Petitioner had not been provided a custody redetermination hearing. Petitioner filed a habeas petition on October 13, 2026, alleging that his ongoing detention without a bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. Respondent argued Petitioner was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that the petition was moot because Petitioner requested removal to Mexico at an October 13, 2026 master calendar hearing before an immigration judge.
The court noted that Petitioner had no prior interactions with immigration authorities and that the precise circumstances of his initial detention—whether at a routine ICE check-in or a targeted enforcement operation—did not impact the analysis. Respondent acknowledged that Petitioner requested a custody redetermination hearing and that no such hearing had been provided. The government contended the failure to provide a bond hearing was immaterial given the removal request and that the habeas petition was moot.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Petitioner's continued detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, a noncitizen who requests a custody redetermination hearing is entitled to a prompt hearing before an immigration judge. The court found that due process requires noncitizens who request such hearings to be promptly provided with one, citing Brito v. U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, Cancino Castellar v. McAleenan, and Feng v. Lyons. Petitioner had been deprived of this statutory right for approximately seven weeks.
The court rejected Respondent's mootness argument. Because Petitioner's removal order was not yet final—he remained within the appeal period—his detention remained discretionary under § 1226(a) and had not become mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). The court held that a habeas challenge to detention under § 1226(a) becomes moot only after a removal order becomes final, such as when a detainee does not file an appeal within the allotted time, citing Lopez v. Warden, Cal. City Correctional Ctr. The proper remedy for the due process violation was Petitioner's immediate release. The court granted the habeas petition and motion for a temporary restraining order, ordering immediate release, return of documents and possessions, no additional restrictions unless determined necessary at a future custody hearing, and a prompt bond hearing with the burden on Petitioner if the government seeks re-detention. The motion to appoint counsel was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) who requests a custody redetermination hearing is entitled to a prompt hearing before an immigration judge; failure to provide one violates due process.
- Detention under § 1226(a) remains discretionary until a removal order becomes final, which occurs only upon expiration of the appeal period without an appeal being filed.
- A non-final removal order does not moot a habeas petition challenging the lack of a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- The proper remedy for a due process violation based on the denial of a prompt custody redetermination hearing is immediate release from detention.
- If the government seeks to re-detain a released petitioner, it must provide a prompt bond hearing at which the petitioner bears the burden of showing he is not a flight risk or danger to the community.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the due process right of noncitizens detained under § 1226(a) to a prompt bond hearing upon request, aligning with a growing body of Ninth Circuit district court precedent. It clarifies that a detainee's request for removal at a master calendar hearing does not render a habeas challenge moot while the removal order remains appealable and non-final. The ruling underscores that the government cannot indefinitely delay custody redetermination hearings and that immediate release is the appropriate remedy for such delays, providing a clear procedural safeguard for detainees awaiting immigration proceedings.