Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Carlos Antunez-Santos petitioned the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus and moved for a temporary restraining order, challenging his ongoing immigration detention. The record showed he had held temporary protected status (TPS) from October 27, 2000, to November 15, 2023, and had lived at liberty in the United States with the government's knowledge for more than twenty years. He was not detained until July 2026, about three years after that status expired.
Respondents conceded in opposition that his detention is discretionary under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). They alleged that an immigration judge held a bond hearing on September 3, 2026 and denied release, and argued that detention therefore remained lawful and constitutional during any appeals. The court noted that Respondents' filing omitted his TPS history. The court had told the parties it was considering resolving the petition together with the restraining order motion; Respondents said they had no objection, and Petitioner filed no reply. The court had also previously held in Oliveira Tinoco v. Albarran that noncitizens who remain in the country for an extended period with the government's knowledge are entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before they may be detained.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both the habeas petition and the restraining order motion on Count One, the due process claim. It began from Ninth Circuit authority that noncitizens apprehended in the interior fall under the discretionary detention regime of § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), a point Respondents did not contest. Joining other district courts in the Ninth Circuit, it found that noncitizens granted TPS hold a liberty interest in their continued freedom, and that a post-deprivation bond hearing is insufficient to protect that interest. Applying Oliveira Tinoco, it reasoned that when the government knows of a noncitizen's presence and does not act to detain within a reasonable time after status expires, a liberty interest in remaining free from detention arises. The bond hearing Respondents described took place after detention began, so it did not supply the pre-deprivation process the court found required.
As a remedy, the court ordered Petitioner released immediately on the same conditions that applied before his July 2026 detention, with no added restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless later found necessary at a pre-deprivation or custody hearing. Respondents must return his identification, passport, work permit, Social Security card and other possessions, and file a notice of compliance within three days. If the government seeks to re-detain him, it must give at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which his eligibility for bond is considered. The order expressly does not address detention if he becomes subject to an executable final removal order and receives notice of it. Because Count One was sufficient, the court did not reach the petition's other grounds. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who were granted TPS and lived at liberty for years with the government's knowledge may hold a constitutionally protected liberty interest, according to this court and other district courts in the Ninth Circuit.
- A bond hearing held after detention does not satisfy due process where the government could practicably have provided a hearing beforehand.
- The remedy for the missing pre-deprivation hearing was return to the last uncontested status before detention, not merely a new hearing while Petitioner remained in custody.
- Any re-detention is conditioned on at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The order leaves open detention following an executable final removal order and does not decide the petition's other grounds.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order on a habeas petition and restraining order motion, not a published appellate opinion, and it binds only the parties. Its value lies in showing how the court extends the reasoning of Oliveira Tinoco, which involved a visa overstay, to former TPS holders, and in collecting other district decisions in the Ninth Circuit that reached similar conclusions.
The ruling is also notable for its remedy. By ordering release to the status quo before detention and barring new restrictions such as electronic monitoring absent a later hearing, the court tied relief to the due process violation rather than leaving release to a fresh bond determination. Because the court decided only Count One and expressly set aside detention under an executable removal order, those questions, and any review of this order, remain open.