Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Changhe Liu, a citizen of China, attempted to enter the United States by crossing the Canadian border in February 2026 and was detained by Customs and Border Patrol. He was initially found not to have a credible fear of persecution, but an immigration judge reversed that determination in March 2026, allowing him to apply for asylum and placing him in removal proceedings. Liu filed his asylum application in May 2026 and was ordered removed in September 2026, after which he timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He has been detained for approximately eight months without a bond hearing.
Liu filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking either immediate release or a bond hearing. Both parties agreed Liu is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), but disputed whether due process entitles him to a bond hearing. Respondents argued that under Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020), Liu is only entitled to statutory rights, and because § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) mandates detention, no bond hearing is required. Liu countered that prolonged detention without an individualized assessment violates due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition and ordered the government to provide Liu with a bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen days. The court held that Liu possesses a liberty interest in freedom from detention under the Due Process Clause, citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and noted his detention has surpassed the six-month 'presumptively reasonable period' recognized in that case. The court rejected the government's reliance on Thuraissigiam, following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Padilla v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2026), which held Thuraissigiam concerned admission to the country, not detention.
Applying the three-factor test from Akmal v. Warden of Cal. City Det. and Lebedev v. Warden of Golden State Annex—total length of detention, likely duration of future detention, and delays caused by the parties—the court found all factors weighed in Liu's favor. His detention exceeded eight months without a determination of necessity; his BIA appeal could take years, indicating significant future detention; and the government did not dispute that months-long delay in scheduling the merits hearing was attributable to it. The court concluded the government's interest in detention without a hearing is outweighed by the length of past and likely future detention, and ordered a bond hearing where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Liu is a flight risk or danger to the community.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) who have passed a credible fear determination are entitled to a bond hearing when detention becomes prolonged, regardless of the mandatory detention language in the statute.
- The Ninth Circuit's Padilla decision limits Thuraissigiam to the admission context, preserving due process protections for detention decisions.
- Detention exceeding six months without an individualized assessment of flight risk or danger triggers heightened due process scrutiny in the Eastern District of California.
- Delays in scheduling merits hearings attributable to the government weigh heavily in favor of granting a bond hearing.
- The government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a detainee is a flight risk or danger to the community at the bond hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the due process rights of asylum seekers detained under § 1225(b) after establishing credible fear, joining a line of Eastern District of California cases (Akmal, Lebedev, Doe v. Andrews) that apply a multi-factor reasonableness test to prolonged detention. It clarifies that Thuraissigiam does not bar bond hearings for this class of detainees, aligning with the Ninth Circuit's 2026 Padilla ruling. The order mandates a specific procedural framework—bond hearing within 14 days, clear and convincing evidence standard, right to counsel, and consideration of alternatives to detention—providing a template for similar habeas petitions in the district.