Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Andres G.B. entered the United States on a B-1/B-2 visa in March 2019. According to his petition and supporting letters, he lived in Utah, worked in construction, owned a construction company, filed taxes, applied for adjustment of status, and is engaged to a U.S. citizen; he has no criminal record. ICE arrested him on July 6, 2026, while he was driving. Government records state the arrest was made without an administrative warrant, a supervisor executed a warrant afterward, and the arrest resulted in a Notice to Appear. Removal proceedings are pending, and he was held at the California City Immigration Processing Center.
On July 27, 2026, an immigration judge denied custody redetermination with the explanation "Denied, because flight risk." The judge later issued a memorandum to facilitate Board of Immigration Appeals review, but the appeal remained unresolved. On August 25, 2026, Petitioner filed a habeas petition claiming his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment. Respondents argued he was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and had received due process, and that the petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust because the appeal was pending.
The Court’s Holding
The court declined to require prudential exhaustion under Puga v. Chertoff. No administrative appellate record was needed to decide the claims, the risk of deliberate bypass was reduced because district courts reach only rare cases with colorable challenges, and the agency was unlikely to correct its own error given an appeal pending over two months with no sign of near-term resolution.
On the statute, the court found that § 1226(a) permits arrest and detention only on a warrant and only while removal proceedings are pending, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(b)(1). Because government records showed a warrantless arrest preceding the Notice to Appear, and Respondents invoked no warrantless-arrest exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), the court found the detention violated the statute and regulations. The later custody hearing did not cure it. Under Mathews v. Eldridge, the court also found a substantial liberty interest arising from more than seven years in the country, work, engagement, and the adjustment application. It found a high risk of erroneous deprivation because neither the one-sentence bond denial nor the later memorandum considered whether any bond amount or alternative conditions could ensure appearance, and it found the government's interest in avoiding notice and a proper hearing low. Petitioner received neither notice nor a compliant hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
The court granted the petition and ordered immediate release, return of documents and possessions, and a notice of compliance within two court days. While Petitioner is subject to § 1226(a), Respondents may not re-detain him without seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, with counsel permitted, at which the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring appearance outweighs his liberty interest such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk. The motions for a temporary restraining order and to expedite were denied as moot, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court read § 1226(a) to authorize arrest and detention only on a warrant and while removal proceedings are pending, and found a warrantless arrest preceding the Notice to Appear unlawful.
- A warrant issued after arrest and a custody hearing held more than a month after detention did not cure a detention the court found unlawful from its start.
- On this record, a bond denial resting only on flight risk, without considering bond amounts or alternative conditions, did not satisfy Fifth Amendment due process.
- Prudential exhaustion was excused because the Board appeal had been pending over two months and no administrative record was needed.
- The order does not resolve the pending removal proceedings, and re-detention is possible only after notice and a hearing meeting the ordered standard.
Why It Matters
This is a district court release order in an individual habeas case, so it is not binding precedent. It shows how an Eastern District of California judge applied Ninth Circuit authority such as Hernandez v. Sessions and the Mathews framework to a warrantless § 1226(a) arrest and a flight-risk-only bond denial. Its reasoning also draws on other district court decisions, which are persuasive only.
The relief is limited to this Petitioner. Removal proceedings remain pending, and the government may seek to re-detain him only after providing seven days' notice and a hearing under the ordered clear-and-convincing standard.