Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bernarlinda Nazaret Centeno Rodriguez, a nineteen-year-old noncitizen held at the Adelanto ICE Facility, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 6, 2026, seeking immediate release on the ground that ICE violated her constitutional procedural due process and statutory rights by detaining her without adequate pre-detention notice and process. She consented to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and the court issued an expedited briefing schedule under General Order 26-05 requiring Respondents to answer within seven days. Respondents filed no timely withdrawal of consent, no answer, and no other communication, so the court deemed the petition unopposed.
According to the petition, Petitioner entered the United States on January 1, 2023, and was paroled by DHS the next day after a determination that she presented neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(b). She was not served with a Notice to Appear but was directed to report to ICE, which she did without missing a check-in. She enrolled at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College and filed an affirmative asylum application with USCIS on January 26, 2024, which remained pending when she was detained. She has no criminal record and has never been arrested, charged, or convicted of any offense.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Petitioner has a protected due process interest in release because she lived in the United States for roughly three and a half years after DHS paroled her, citing Zadvydas v. Davis for the principle that the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States regardless of the lawfulness of their presence. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge framework, the court weighed the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation and the value of additional safeguards, and the government's interest, while acknowledging the heightened governmental interest in the immigration detention context under Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland.
Because Respondents elected not to respond, the record contained no evidence or argument of a significant government interest in detaining Petitioner. The court found it uncontroverted that she had a significant due process interest in release, had complied with the terms of her release, and posed no apparent risk of flight or danger. Concluding that all Mathews factors favored Petitioner, the court held she had sufficiently alleged a procedural due process claim and made a showing entitling her to relief, warranting immediate release.
The court granted the petition and ordered Respondents to release Petitioner immediately under the same conditions in place before her current detention, return all seized personal belongings including identification and work authorization documents, and file a Notice of Release within three days confirming return of those belongings. Respondents were further enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner absent strict compliance with due process and all applicable statutes and regulations.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen paroled into the United States who has lived freely in the country for years has a protected due process interest in remaining at liberty.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test governs what process is due before immigration re-detention, even accounting for the heightened government interest in that context.
- When the government fails to respond to a habeas petition, the absence of any asserted government interest can leave the Mathews factors weighing entirely in the petitioner's favor.
- Relief included not only immediate release but restoration of prior release conditions, return of seized documents, and an injunction against re-detention without strict due process compliance.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that immigration authorities cannot simply re-detain a paroled noncitizen with a pending asylum application and a record of full compliance without providing notice and an opportunity to contest the detention. It treats the government's silence as leaving the due process balance effectively uncontested.
The decision also illustrates the practical effect of the Central District of California's expedited habeas briefing procedures, which are designed to produce prompt resolution and reduce the need for separate injunctive relief motions.