Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Henry A.D., a noncitizen who entered the United States without admission in 2008, has lived in the country for nearly two decades with family and participated in a faith community. His only criminal history is a recent arrest for driving under the influence. On August 13, 2026, ICE arrested Petitioner outside his last known address without providing notice or a hearing, initiated removal proceedings, and determined he would remain detained. Petitioner requested a custody re-determination hearing in writing, but no such hearing was ever held. On October 1, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed, though the removal order is not final under 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1. The parties agree Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that he is entitled to a custody hearing. Respondent acknowledges that over two months into detention, no hearing has been scheduled.
Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his civil immigration detention. Respondent filed an opposition conceding Petitioner's entitlement to a custody hearing under § 1226(a) and that Petitioner had requested one in writing over two months prior, but had not held or scheduled it. The court considered the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which permits habeas relief for custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law, and recognized its jurisdiction over immigration detention challenges under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition and ordered Petitioner's immediate release, finding his continued detention without a custody hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Applying the two-step procedural due process framework, the court first held Petitioner possesses a protectable liberty interest in freedom from imprisonment, strengthened by his nearly two decades of residence, family ties, and community participation in the United States. Citing Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017), and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 693 (2001), the court affirmed that due process protections extend to all persons within U.S. borders regardless of immigration status.
Under the Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 335 (1976), balancing test, the court found all three factors weighed in Petitioner's favor: (1) Petitioner's substantial private interest in liberty, underscored by his lengthy community ties; (2) a considerable risk of erroneous deprivation given the complete absence of any pre- or post-detention hearing, coupled with Respondent's failure to show Petitioner is a danger or flight risk; and (3) negligible government interest and administrative burden in providing a routine custody hearing. The court concluded Petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' The order requires immediate release, return of documents and possessions, a notice of compliance within two court days, and an injunction against re-detention under § 1226(a) absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections including seven-days' notice, a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, clear and convincing evidence standard, and right to counsel.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) for over two months without a custody hearing is entitled to immediate release via habeas corpus when the government concedes the hearing is required but fails to provide it.
- Lengthy residence, family ties, and community participation in the United States strengthen a noncitizen's protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment, even if the person is removable.
- The government's failure to provide any hearing — pre- or post-detention — creates a serious risk of erroneous deprivation when it does not assert the detainee is a danger or flight risk.
- Routine custody hearings impose minimal administrative burden and cannot justify prolonged detention without process.
- The court's injunction sets specific procedural requirements for any future detention under § 1226(a), including seven-days' notice, a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, clear and convincing evidence standard, and right to counsel.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that statutory and constitutional due process rights in immigration detention are not theoretical; they require timely, actual hearings. The court's application of Mathews v. Eldridge to a § 1226(a) detainee with deep community ties underscores that liberty interests grow stronger over time and cannot be indefinitely suspended by executive inaction. By ordering immediate release and enjoining re-detention absent specific procedural safeguards, the ruling provides a concrete template for district courts addressing systemic delays in custody hearings. The decision aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent in Hernandez v. Sessions and Supreme Court guidance in Zadvydas, confirming that the government's interest in detention must be substantiated through process, not mere assertion.