Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dolores Andong Nguema Alene, a citizen of Equatorial Guinea, entered the United States in December 2024 on a B2 nonimmigrant visitor visa with authorization to remain until June 10, 2025, and failed to depart by that deadline. On April 1, 2026, Homeland Security Investigations received information identifying her as a possible visa overstay believed to be living in Las Vegas, Nevada. ICE agents arrested her in Las Vegas on August 13, 2026. The following day, she was served with a Notice to Appear charging her as removable under INA § 237(a)(1)(B) for remaining longer than permitted, along with a Warrant for Arrest of Alien (Form I-200) and a Notice of Custody Determination.
DHS filed the Notice of Custody Determination with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which calendared a custody redetermination hearing for August 26, 2026 and later rescheduled it to September 8, 2026. At that hearing, the immigration judge denied bond on flight-risk grounds. Petitioner reserved appeal but did not timely file a custody appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. She remained detained at the California City Detention Facility. On September 11, 2026, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that her warrantless arrest without probable cause violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), § 1226(a), and the Fourth Amendment, and that her detention without a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decision maker violated due process. She requested immediate release. Respondents opposed, arguing that she was properly detained under § 1226(a) after overstaying her visa and that she failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing to the BIA. The order was filed October 15, 2026, and dated October 14, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court waived the prudential exhaustion requirement because Petitioner raised purely legal challenges to the constitutionality of her arrest and continued detention rather than challenging the outcome of the bond hearing. On the merits, the court found that even assuming the government failed to comply with statutory or regulatory requirements governing the initiation of custody, Petitioner had not shown that immediate release was an appropriate remedy. The court noted that the government issued a warrant, Notice to Appear, and custody determination the day after arrest, and it rejected the Fourth Amendment claim because the remedy for an unlawful arrest is suppression of evidence, not release from custody.
The court held that Petitioner, having overstayed her visa, was entitled only to the relief afforded by applicable regulations—a custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1). Because Petitioner had already received a bond hearing at which an immigration judge denied bond on an individualized finding of flight risk, she had already received the statutory relief to which she was entitled under § 1226(a). The court also rejected her due process claim because the only remedy would be a § 1226(a) bond hearing, which she had already received, and it noted that her two-month detention was presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis. The court therefore denied the habeas petition, denied the request for a temporary restraining order as moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Respondents and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petitioner challenging immigration detention who has already received a bond hearing before an immigration judge has received the only relief available under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and applicable regulations.
- The remedy for an unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment is suppression of evidence, not release from custody, even in the immigration detention context.
- Courts may waive the prudential exhaustion requirement when a petitioner raises purely legal challenges to the constitutionality of arrest and detention rather than challenging the outcome of administrative proceedings.
- Even assuming the government failed to comply with warrant requirements for immigration arrest, immediate release is not an appropriate remedy when the petitioner has received a bond hearing with an individualized custody determination.
- A two-month immigration detention is presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis, which established a six-month presumptively reasonable period.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the limited scope of habeas relief available to noncitizens challenging immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Even when procedural violations are assumed, the remedy is not immediate release but rather a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Once that hearing has occurred and bond has been denied on individualized findings, the petitioner has received all process and relief to which she is entitled under the statute.
The ruling also clarifies that Fourth Amendment violations in the immigration arrest context do not provide a basis for release from custody through habeas corpus. The decision aligns with case law holding that suppression of evidence, not release, is the appropriate remedy for unlawful arrests, and that a post-arrest bond hearing can satisfy the process due under § 1226(a) when the petitioner has already received an individualized custody determination.