Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 13, 2026, Petitioner Armen Abrahamyan, represented by counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Petition alleged that Abrahamyan was in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Adelanto, California, and was being held in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Court issued a Notice of General Order 26-05 and Briefing Schedule the same day, requiring Respondents' Notice of Appearance by October 16, 2026, and their Answer by October 20, 2026.
Respondents timely filed a Notice of Appearance but did not file an Answer or otherwise respond to the Petition. The Court determined that Respondents' lack of response was a deliberate choice rather than inadvertent. Citing United States v. Sineneng-Smith and Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, the Court emphasized the principle of party presentation and the role of courts as neutral arbiters, noting that points not argued will not be considered. Based on the absence of any responsive opposition, the Court concluded it could grant the Petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Court incorporated the facts set forth in the unopposed Petition regarding Petitioner's background and immigration history. Having reviewed those facts, the Court found that the Petition sets forth a claim that Petitioner, having been released on an Order of Release on Recognizance and supervised by ICE through the Alternatives to Detention Program for years, had a protected liberty interest in his continued freedom from custody. The Court held that his re-detention—without prior notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard—violated due process and merits relief, citing Mathews v. Eldridge, Pinchi v. Noem, and Perez Bueno v. Janecka.
Accordingly, the Court ordered: (1) Judgment shall be entered granting the unopposed Petition; (2) Respondents must release Petitioner Armen Abrahamyan (A 246-904-893) from custody within 24 hours of entry of the Order; and (3) Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner without (a) at least seven days' written notice stating the specific condition of release he allegedly violated and the supporting facts, and (b) a pre-deprivation bond hearing before an immigration judge, at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community and that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure his appearance and the community's safety.
Key Takeaways
- The Court granted an unopposed habeas corpus petition where the government deliberately chose not to respond to allegations of unconstitutional re-detention.
- Petitioner's years of supervision under ICE's Alternatives to Detention Program created a protected liberty interest in continued freedom from custody.
- Re-detention without prior notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard violates due process under Mathews v. Eldridge.
- The injunction requires seven days' written notice of alleged violations and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before an immigration judge.
- At any such bond hearing, the government bears the burden of proving flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces due process protections for noncitizens released under ICE's Alternatives to Detention Program, establishing that prolonged supervision creates a liberty interest that cannot be terminated without notice and a hearing. The decision applies the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to immigration re-detention and aligns with recent Northern District of California precedent in Pinchi v. Noem and Central District of California precedent in Perez Bueno v. Janecka. The injunctive relief—requiring seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing with a clear-and-convincing standard—sets a procedural floor for future re-detention decisions involving similarly situated individuals.