Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Andrey Arevalo-Marin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court explained that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
The court had previously addressed the legal issues raised by the petition. It had found that the Due Process Clause requires the government, before re-detaining a noncitizen previously released on bond or conditional parole under § 1226(a) or humanitarian parole under § 1182(d)(5), to provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which bond eligibility must be considered. It cited its earlier decisions in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, D.L.C. v. Wofford, and Altin v. Chestnut, several of which granted temporary restraining orders and immediate release based on likely success on due process claims.
On October 30, 2026, the court told the parties it was considering ruling directly on the petition and asked whether either side opposed simultaneous resolution of the temporary-restraining-order motion and the habeas petition. It also directed the respondents to identify any factual or legal issues materially distinguishing this case from Selis Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, and D.L.C.
The Court’s Holding
The respondents opposed the temporary-restraining-order motion on November 3, 2026, but identified no factual or legal issues materially distinguishing the case from the court's prior decisions. They also stated that they had no objection to the court ruling on the underlying petition. Because Arevalo-Marin was proceeding pro se and the court would grant the relief he sought, it declined to wait for a reply that would only delay that relief.
The court granted both the temporary-restraining-order motion and the habeas petition for the reasons set forth in its Altin order. It concluded that, as in Altin, the proper remedy for the respondents' failure to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing was Arevalo-Marin's immediate release. The order therefore resolved the merits of the habeas petition rather than merely imposing interim restrictions while the case remained pending.
The operative order required Arevalo-Marin's immediate release on the same conditions that applied immediately before his detention in September 2026. It barred additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless found necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing, required return of his documents and possessions, and required a notice of compliance within three days. Any effort to re-detain him would require at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter. The court expressly left open detention circumstances following an executable final order of removal and notice of that order. It directed service on the California City Detention Facility and entry of judgment for Arevalo-Marin, with the case to be closed.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted final habeas relief as well as the temporary-restraining-order motion, rather than limiting its decision to temporary interim relief.
- Immediate release was ordered because the government had not provided a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing.
- The respondents' opposition did not identify a material factual or legal distinction from the court's earlier decisions addressing the same due process issues.
- Release was to restore the conditions in place before the September 2026 detention, with no added electronic monitoring unless a future hearing established its necessity.
- The order did not decide the government's detention authority after an executable final removal order and notice of that order.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the court's established due process framework to require both a neutral pre-deprivation bond hearing before re-detention and immediate release when that hearing was not provided. It also shows the court resolving a habeas petition promptly where the government offered no material distinction from controlling prior rulings and did not object to a ruling on the petition.
At the same time, the order is carefully bounded: it restores prior release conditions and regulates any renewed detention, but expressly reserves the distinct circumstances arising from an executable final order of removal.