Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Giann Rangel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through retained counsel on October 15, 2026. He was in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at the Desert View Facility in Adelanto, California. The petition described him as a Venezuelan national who entered the United States on or before September 8, 2023, was paroled, and applied for asylum and withholding of removal in 2024. It also said he worked in catering, paid taxes, and participated in his Texas community while awaiting adjudication.
The petition alleged that respondents detained Rangel in September 2026 at a military base where his job had contracted him to work, without a warrant, notice, pre-deprivation hearing, or other opportunity to be heard. It raised due process and Immigration and Nationality Act claims and sought immediate release. On October 15, the parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge for all purposes, including judgment. The Clerk's Office also issued a General Order 26-05 notice directing respondents to show cause, appear within three calendar days, and answer within seven days.
Respondents did not appear or respond. On October 23, Rangel's counsel submitted a declaration describing a respondents' counsel policy treating failure to meet those deadlines as the functional equivalent of non-opposition, with an email memorializing that policy attached. The court deemed the matter submitted. These nonappearance and policy statements supplied the procedural setting; the court's resulting decision rested on the absence of any shown cause and the petition's facial entitlement to relief.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that § 2241 authorizes habeas relief for people held under federal authority or in violation of federal constitutional or legal protections, and that district courts retain jurisdiction over immigration-detention challenges sufficiently independent of a removal order's merits. It then addressed § 2243's requirement to award the writ or direct the respondent to show cause unless the application shows the detainee is not entitled to relief. The court also invoked party presentation: courts ordinarily decide the issues and arguments the parties advance rather than constructing a case for a represented party.
Applying those principles, the court found that respondents failed to comply with the October 15 show-cause directive by neither appearing nor answering. They therefore did not show why the writ should not issue. Because the time to show cause had expired without any cause shown, and nothing on the petition's face established that Rangel was not entitled to relief, the court concluded it could forthwith award the writ. The decision did not separately adjudicate the merits of his asylum application or removal proceedings.
The court granted the unopposed petition, directed that a writ issue, and ordered Rangel's immediate release subject to the same conditions that applied to his order of supervision before his arrest and detention. It also ordered respondents to return any property confiscated during his arrest and processing and directed entry of judgment. Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson signed the order on October 29, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- An immigration respondent's failure to answer a court's show-cause order can leave a § 2241 petition unopposed and support issuance of the writ.
- The court relied on the expired response deadline, the absence of any shown cause, and the petition's facial entitlement to relief rather than inventing arguments for the nonappearing respondents.
- The order required immediate release on the pre-arrest order-of-supervision conditions, not an unconditional release without supervision terms.
- Respondents also had to return any property confiscated from Rangel during arrest and processing, and judgment was to be entered accordingly.
- The ruling concerned Rangel's detention and did not decide the merits of his asylum or withholding-of-removal application.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how §§ 2241 and 2243 and the party-presentation principle operate when immigration detainees seek habeas relief and the government does not respond to a show-cause schedule. The court treated the procedural default together with the petition's facial showing as sufficient to award relief, while grounding its jurisdiction in a detention challenge independent of the removal order's merits.
Its practical disposition was specific and immediate: release under the earlier supervision conditions, return of confiscated property, and entry of judgment. The opinion leaves the underlying immigration applications and removal merits outside its disposition.