Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Omar Figueroa-Santos, a Mexican citizen, alleged that he entered the United States without inspection around 1993 and lived here for 33 years without contact with immigration authorities. He is married, has three children (two are U.S. citizens), works in construction, and has no criminal history. On September 9, 2026, ICE officers running a targeted operation for a different person stopped the truck he was driving after he left home. DHS's Form I-213 says officers thought the target might be inside, given a physical description, distance and low light. Petitioner alleges he committed no traffic violation and cooperated; DHS records say he initially refused to identify himself, had no documents permitting him to remain, and admitted unlawful presence.
DHS served a Notice to Appear (NTA) on October 9, 2026, a month after the arrest. Respondents did not produce an arrest warrant or the other forms the I-213 said would be served. Removal proceedings continue, and he has never had a bond hearing. His October 20 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 raised five grounds: procedural due process, substantive due process, detention under § 1225(b) instead of § 1226(a), an Administrative Procedure Act challenge, and a warrantless arrest violating the Fourth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). Respondents apparently conceded he is not subject to mandatory detention under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock but argued a first detention requires no pre-deprivation hearing; their answer did not address the arrest claim. The parties consented to a magistrate judge.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Ground 1. Nothing showed immigration authorities knew of petitioner's presence before September 9, 2026, so the court could not find an explicit or implicit government promise to leave him at liberty, and he cited no other authority for a protected liberty interest.
On Ground 3, the court applied Bostock, which held that people present without admission and arrested in the interior fall under § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). It noted that the usual remedy is a bond hearing rather than release and found no authority for a clear-and-convincing burden. It declined to order a hearing because release was warranted on Ground 5, but declared he cannot be detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The court granted Ground 5 because respondents' answer did not contest it, after a standing order warned that such claims may be granted as unopposed, and because the I-213 did not conclusively show a lawful arrest. The NTA issued a month after the arrest, and the court cited district decisions finding no authority to arrest before removal proceedings were initiated. It also noted other judges in the district have declined release on that timing issue. Respondents identified no facts showing he was likely to abscond before a warrant could be obtained, given his arrest near home, lack of known criminal history, stable residence and community ties. Grounds 2 and 4 were dismissed as moot. The court ordered immediate release and allowed petitioner to seek an order to show cause re contempt if he was not freed within three days.
Key Takeaways
- A magistrate judge held that a noncitizen who entered without inspection and was arrested in the interior is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), following the Ninth Circuit's Bostock decision.
- Failing to respond substantively to a habeas claim after a warning in the court's standing order can lead to the claim being granted as unopposed.
- In a warrantless immigration arrest, the government must point to facts showing the person was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained; community ties and lack of criminal history cut against that showing.
- A first-time detainee who had never been released by the government failed to show a protected liberty interest supporting a pre-detention hearing.
Why It Matters
This is a single magistrate judge's order in an individual habeas case, so it carries limited precedential weight beyond the Ninth Circuit authority it applies. The Ground 5 relief rests partly on the government's failure to contest the claim and on non-binding district decisions, and the order acknowledges contrary rulings within the Central District on whether an arrest preceding an NTA requires release.
Several matters remain open. Removal proceedings continue, no bond hearing was ordered, and attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act would require a separate post-judgment motion.