Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The petitioner, identified by a pseudonymized name, entered the United States at JFK Airport on January 25, 2024, and received humanitarian parole to remain until January 23, 2026. He applied for asylum, worked in construction, and has no criminal history. ICE arrested him in Florida on July 29, 2026, and DHS served a Notice to Appear on August 7, 2026. He was moved to the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility and alleged poor conditions there, which the court did not adjudicate. On September 15, 2026, an immigration judge denied bond without reaching the merits, finding the immigration court lacked jurisdiction.
On October 2, 2026, he petitioned for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking release and asserting Fifth Amendment due process, Fourth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act theories. Respondents opposed, arguing only that he is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). They did not dispute that he has a protected liberty interest.
The Court’s Holding
The court found a clear liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause and rejected the government's § 1225(b)(2) argument. Relying on Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), it explained that mandatory detention under that provision applies only to noncitizens entering at the border. People present without admission and apprehended in the interior fall under discretionary detention in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Years of release on parole in the community further strengthened his interest.
Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found a substantial private liberty interest, a considerable risk of erroneous deprivation, and a low government interest in avoiding notice and a hearing. Respondents did not argue he is dangerous or a flight risk, and he has no criminal history and community ties. The court held he was entitled to notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before detention, received neither, and was detained in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It did not reach the Fourth Amendment or APA claims.
The court granted the petition, ordered immediate release, return of his property, and a compliance notice within two court days. It enjoined re-arrest or re-detention while he is subject to § 1226(a) absent at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder. At that hearing the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk to public safety or appearance, and he may have counsel present. It granted in forma pauperis status, denied the TRO and counsel motions as moot, and directed entry of judgment and closure of the case.
Key Takeaways
- As applied here, § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention is limited to noncitizens entering at the border, and people apprehended in the interior are detained, if at all, under § 1226(a).
- Prolonged release on humanitarian parole can strengthen a noncitizen's protected liberty interest in avoiding detention.
- Under its Mathews analysis, this court required notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before detention where the petitioner had no criminal history, had community ties, and the government did not claim danger or flight risk.
- The relief was release plus a conditional bar on re-detention, not a ruling on the merits of his asylum claim or removal case.
- The court did not decide the Fourth Amendment or APA theories.
Why It Matters
This is a district court habeas order, not a published appellate opinion, so it is persuasive rather than binding. Its force comes mainly from its reliance on the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision and from its application of Mathews to the interior arrest of a person who had been released into the community. The seven-day notice and clear-and-convincing-evidence requirements, drawn from Zadvydas and Hernandez, are relief the court fashioned for this petitioner, not a rule announced for all cases. Its findings also rest on this petitioner's record, and respondents did not contest his liberty interest or claim danger or flight risk.
Open matters remain. The order does not resolve his asylum application, his removal proceedings, or the immigration judge's bond-jurisdiction ruling, and it makes no findings on his allegations about detention conditions. Any future re-detention would turn on whether respondents satisfy the notice and hearing requirements the court imposed.