Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Emerson Calmo Ahilen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order. Ahilen had been previously released from immigration custody on an Order of Release on Recognizance (OREC) but was re-detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on August 19, 2026, when he reported for a check-in appointment. The government argued that Ahilen was re-detained following an arrest for misdemeanor DUI in April 2026, which allegedly violated his OREC terms requiring him to remain law-abiding.
The court had previously ruled in several cases that the Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before re-detaining a noncitizen who was previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole. On September 18, 2026, the court informed the parties it was considering ruling directly on the petition and asked whether there were any factual or legal issues that materially distinguished this case from those prior decisions. Respondents filed an opposition emphasizing Ahilen's DUI arrest but did not oppose simultaneous resolution of the TRO motion and habeas petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both the habeas petition and the motion for temporary restraining order as to Count One, the due process claim. The court found that Respondents failed to provide any new legal arguments or identify any factual or legal issues that would materially distinguish this case from the court's prior decisions in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, and D.L.C. v. Wofford. Although Respondents pointed to Ahilen's April 2026 misdemeanor DUI arrest, they did not provide his FBI RAP sheet to substantiate the law enforcement interaction, and the immigration record showed he was not detained until nearly four months later at his OREC check-in. Moreover, Respondents neither argued nor explained why Ahilen's criminal history rendered inapplicable the court's previous determination that noncitizens previously released into the United States are entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before they can be re-detained.
The court rejected Respondents' reliance on Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, noting that the Ninth Circuit in that case held only that a noncitizen under § 1226(a) does not have a right to a second bond hearing when the only changed material condition since their first bond hearing is the duration of their detention; it did not hold that noncitizens have no due process right to a pre-deprivation hearing. The court ordered Ahilen's immediate release with the same conditions he was subject to prior to his August 19, 2026 detention, directed Respondents to return all his documents and possessions, required a notice of compliance within three days, and mandated that if the government seeks to re-detain him, it must provide at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter. The court did not address additional grounds raised in the petition because it granted relief on the due process claim.
Key Takeaways
- The Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before re-detaining a noncitizen who was previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or § 1182(d)(5).
- A noncitizen's criminal history, including a misdemeanor DUI arrest, does not eliminate the due process right to a pre-deprivation bond hearing unless the government provides substantiated evidence and explains why that history justifies detention without such a hearing.
- The proper remedy for the government's failure to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing is the petitioner's immediate release from custody with the same conditions that applied before the unlawful detention.
- When a court grants a habeas petition based on one claim, it need not address additional grounds raised in the petition if the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought based on the successful claim.
- The Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland addressed only the right to a second bond hearing when detention duration is the only changed circumstance and did not eliminate the due process right to an initial pre-deprivation bond hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a growing body of case law in the Eastern District of California and within the Ninth Circuit holding that due process protections apply to immigration detention and require pre-deprivation bond hearings even for noncitizens with criminal histories. The ruling emphasizes that the government cannot simply point to a criminal record without providing evidence and legal argument explaining why that record justifies detention without a hearing. By ordering immediate release and requiring seven days' notice and a hearing before any future re-detention, the court provided meaningful procedural protections against erroneous deprivation of liberty.
The decision also demonstrates the court's willingness to resolve habeas petitions and TRO motions simultaneously when the legal issues have been previously decided and the government fails to identify material distinctions. This approach expedites relief for detainees who are being held in violation of their constitutional rights and avoids unnecessary delays that would prolong unlawful detention.