Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Daniel Sebastian Venegas-Murcia, a native and citizen of Colombia, entered the United States in 2022. Immigration authorities apprehended and detained him for several days before releasing him on his own recognizance. Removal proceedings remained pending, and he was married to a United States citizen, had a pending Form I-130 alien-relative petition, and had an immigration-court appearance scheduled for February 2028. He had worked as an auto mechanic before the arrest leading to his present detention.
The parties described his later criminal arrest differently, but respondents reported that New Jersey police arrested him in August 2026 for burglary, criminal trespass, and harassment, and that ICE arrested him on September 11. Venegas-Murcia said the criminal charges were dismissed. Because respondents supplied no evidence addressing that assertion, the court accepted his representation that dismissal occurred before immigration custody. He alleged that he received no administrative arrest warrant, advance notice of incarceration, hearing, or neutral determination that detention was necessary.
His October 10, 2026 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 principally challenged re-detention on due-process grounds and also alleged statutory violations based on the warrantless arrest. Respondents agreed that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225, governed his detention. They nevertheless sought denial or a stay, arguing that an October 21 bond hearing made the petition moot and that he first had to exhaust remedies before an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. They acknowledged that they could not produce a Form I-200 administrative warrant.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi rejected mootness because respondents bore the heavy burden of showing that no effective relief remained and had not reported the bond hearing's outcome. Their stay request and request to deny the petition as moot were denied. The court also waived prudential exhaustion for the due-process claims: a later bond hearing could not address whether constitutionally adequate safeguards preceded the deprivation of liberty, and immigration judges and the BIA could not decide constitutional challenges to the statutes they administer. Respondents additionally waived merits arguments by not substantively addressing due process in their response.
The court recognized a protected liberty interest in remaining free after release on recognizance. Relying in part on Noori v. LaRose, it found that Venegas-Murcia received even less process than the petitioner there: no notification or individualized reason preceded revocation of release and summary detention. Although respondents emphasized his criminal history, the accepted dismissal of the charges meant a pre-detention hearing could have allowed him to show that the arrest did not justify immigration detention. A bond hearing now would not cure the completed Fifth Amendment violation; the court concluded that only release could do so. It therefore did not reach the separate warrantless-arrest claim.
The operative order required respondents to release Venegas-Murcia within twenty-four hours under the conditions existing immediately before his current detention. It enjoined re-detention unless respondents demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that he presents a flight risk or danger to the community such that custody is legally justified. His request for attorney's fees and costs was denied without prejudice, with an application for reasonable fees and costs permitted within thirty days after judgment. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case on November 17, 2026, unless he reported noncompliance.
Key Takeaways
- A scheduled immigration bond hearing did not establish mootness when respondents failed to provide its outcome or show that no effective judicial relief remained.
- The court waived prudential exhaustion because the available administrative process could not remedy the asserted absence of constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation procedures.
- Release on recognizance created a protected liberty interest, and re-detention without notice, an individualized explanation, or an opportunity to be heard violated the Fifth Amendment.
- The remedy was release within twenty-four hours under the prior conditions, not merely a new bond hearing after the constitutional violation had occurred.
- Any future re-detention requires clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, while the fee request remains available through a timely application.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes custody challenges from challenges to final removal orders and applies due-process protection to a noncitizen whose earlier release on recognizance was revoked without procedural safeguards. Its remedy addresses both the existing violation and any future re-detention, while leaving the underlying removal proceedings intact.
The ruling also shows how mootness and exhaustion arguments may fail when the government does not document a bond hearing's result and the administrative process cannot repair the claimed pre-deprivation constitutional injury. The court resolved the case without relying on the stayed Maldonado Bautista judgment and expressly left the warrantless-arrest claim undecided.