Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Edwin Quill Samol, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States in approximately 2018 when he was ten years old. On March 5, 2024, U.S. Border Patrol encountered him and issued a Form I-862 Notice to Appear; he was released on an Order of Recognizance on March 25, 2024, with an individual hearing scheduled for December 4, 2026. Before that hearing occurred, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him without a warrant on July 28, 2026, as he walked to work, first at the Delaney Hall Detention Facility and later at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. It is undisputed that he has no criminal history.
On September 24, 2026, Samol filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 8 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondents filed a Return on October 1, 2026, and Samol filed a Traverse on October 9, 2026. He alleged that his warrantless arrest violated 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which permits arrest and detention of a noncitizen pending removal proceedings only on a warrant issued by the Attorney General, and that Respondents failed to show the arrest fit the warrant exception in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a). He also claimed the detention violated due process. Respondents conceded Samol was subject to § 1226 and was arrested without a warrant, but argued that a warrant issued after the arrest cured the defect and that the petition was moot because he declined a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition and ordered Samol's immediate release. It held that the warrantless arrest violated 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a) and 1357(a). Section 1357(a) permits a warrantless arrest only where an officer has reason to believe the noncitizen is in the United States in violation of law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, and Respondents conceded they had no further information supporting either condition. The court rejected the argument that a warrant issued after the arrest cured the violation, agreeing with Ninth Circuit courts that a post-hoc warrant does not cure an unlawful warrantless arrest.
The court also found a due process violation. Because Samol had been released on his own recognizance under § 1226(a), he gained a constitutionally protected liberty interest in his continued freedom. Applying the three-part test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found all three factors favored him: his private interest in remaining free was significant, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because there was no indication he had become a flight risk or danger to the community, and Respondents failed to demonstrate any significant government interest in detaining him without notice or a hearing. The court rejected the mootness argument, holding that declining a bond hearing did not render the petition moot where the proper relief was immediate release.
Key Takeaways
- A warrant issued after a warrantless arrest does not cure a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires a warrant issued by the Attorney General before a noncitizen may be arrested and detained pending removal proceedings.
- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), immigration officers may make a warrantless arrest only if they have reason to believe the noncitizen is unlawfully present and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, and the government bears the burden of demonstrating those conditions.
- A noncitizen released on his own recognizance under § 1226(a) gains a constitutionally protected liberty interest in continued freedom, and the government must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before revoking that release and re-detaining him.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge three-factor test governs what process is due before the government re-detains a person previously released on conditional parole, and all three factors weighed in favor of a pre-deprivation hearing here.
- A petitioner's decision to decline a bond hearing before an immigration judge does not render a habeas petition moot when the proper relief for an unlawful detention is immediate release.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the statutory requirement that immigration authorities obtain a warrant before arresting and detaining a noncitizen pending removal proceedings, and it confirms that post-hoc issuance of a warrant does not cure a warrantless arrest that fails the narrow exception in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a). It also establishes that a noncitizen released on his own recognizance holds a protected liberty interest entitling him to notice and a hearing before re-detention, applying Mathews v. Eldridge to immigration detention in the Southern District of California and joining similar rulings holding that unlawful warrantless arrests and detention without due process warrant immediate release through habeas corpus.