Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hamlet Avetisyan, a citizen of Armenia, presented himself at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in September 2022, and DHS placed him in removal proceedings. DHS released him on a $5,000 bond in December 2022 and enrolled him in the Alternatives to Detention program. He then lived under ICE supervision for more than three years, applied for asylum and withholding of removal, obtained work authorization, and, according to DHS records, appeared for his hearings and check-ins. His removal proceedings remain pending.
In March 2026 he was arrested in Glendale and charged in Los Angeles Superior Court with second-degree robbery. He pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance. On May 19, 2026, the day before his preliminary hearing, ICE arrested him. He received an administrative arrest warrant citing his pending removal proceedings and a custody determination form on which no option was checked; he marked a request for immigration judge review. He missed the state hearing, and the Superior Court issued a $50,000 bench warrant and denied a request for a writ to produce him. Respondents declined to transport him physically and offered only a remote appearance.
Avetisyan filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 raising procedural due process, substantive due process and Administrative Procedure Act claims. Respondents contended he was subject to mandatory detention under the Laken Riley Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E), or at most was entitled to a bond hearing. The parties consented to a magistrate judge.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Ground 1. It agreed that ICE's 2022 release created a protected liberty interest, an implicit promise that his liberty would be revoked only if he violated release conditions. Applying Mathews v. Eldridge, and assuming without deciding that he was subject to § 1226(c), the court found a due process violation on the facts of this case: detention without any pre-deprivation process, based on a pending charge, and without prompt notice that he was held under § 1226(c), which left him no meaningful post-detention remedy.
None of the May 2026 paperwork identified § 1226(c). Avetisyan learned of that basis only when Respondents filed their Answer, and it was unclear how he could have sought a Joseph hearing. Respondents did not explain why the immigration judge review he requested never occurred. The court found a significant risk of error because Respondents' rationale shifted from the clause covering crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury to the burglary, theft, larceny and shoplifting clause, without explaining how robbery fits, and they never addressed the separate inadmissibility requirement. The government's interest was reduced because he was only charged, had pleaded not guilty, and had been released by both DHS and the state court.
The court distinguished Demore v. Kim as a facial challenge involving convictions and brief detention. Avetisyan had been held about five months with no removal decision, and his detention plus the refusal to transport him impeded his defense of the charge whose dismissal could end mandatory detention. The court chose release over a post-deprivation hearing, reasoning that release restores the status quo and that a belated hearing would let the government cure violations after any habeas filing. It ordered immediate release, allowed a contempt request if he was not released within three days, and barred re-detention without a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. At that hearing Respondents must prove by clear and convincing evidence either that he is subject to § 1226(c), or that under § 1226(a) he is a flight risk or danger or removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Grounds 2 and 3 were dismissed without prejudice as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The court assumed, without deciding, that the Laken Riley Act's mandatory detention provision applied, and held that the lack of pre-deprivation process and notice violated due process as applied.
- A prior ICE release supported a protected liberty interest that required a hearing before re-detention.
- A post-detention Joseph hearing was inadequate where the detainee was never told the statutory basis for his detention.
- The remedy was release plus a conditional bar on re-detention, not a belated hearing.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's order in one habeas case, entered by consent, and it has no binding precedential effect; it relies on persuasive district court authority. It is an as-applied ruling. The court did not decide whether robbery falls within § 1226(c)(1)(E), whether Avetisyan satisfies the inadmissibility element, or whether the statute is invalid generally.
Open matters include the state robbery case and the asylum and removal proceedings. Any future re-detention must follow the ordered pre-detention hearing procedure.