Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hilton Leobardo Suazo Gomez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by immigration authorities. He entered the United States on or about April 15, 2013, was encountered by U.S. Border Patrol, and was processed as 'Expedited Removal with Credible Fear.' Credible fear was found, and he was released on June 24, 2013. An immigration judge ordered dismissal of his case on July 27, 2023. On August 18, 2026, he was arrested by the Miami, Florida Police Department for the moving traffic violation of no valid driver's license, and custody was transferred from the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center to ICE. On August 20, 2026, he was issued a Notice to Appear in standard removal proceedings under INA § 240, charged with being present without admission or parole and lacking a valid entry document. He did not receive a bond hearing prior to his detention.
Suazo Gomez filed the habeas petition on September 21, 2026, and respondents filed an answer on October 5, 2026. He did not file a traverse, and briefing was complete. The petition raised four claims: violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, violation of the INA, financial obligations, and irreparable harm. Respondents maintained that he was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was entitled to seek a bond hearing before an immigration judge. The matter proceeded before Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim under 28 U.S.C. § 636, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(17), resulting in findings and recommendations submitted to the assigned district judge rather than a final judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that Suazo Gomez was detained under § 1226(a), relying on Rodriguez Vazquez's holding that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court observed that the majority of courts nationwide agreed with that interpretation, citing decisions from the Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits as well as numerous district courts. Because federal regulations provide that noncitizens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention, the court found that Suazo Gomez should have received a bond hearing at the outset of his detention. Respondents did not argue that he was a flight risk or danger to the community, and the record contained no evidence suggesting a necessity for quick action by ICE that would justify denying a pre-deprivation hearing after his release from local custody.
The court therefore recommended that the petition be granted as to the statutory claim and that Suazo Gomez be immediately released. It expressly declined to address the remaining claims because the statutory ruling entitled him to the habeas relief sought. The proposed disposition directed respondents to provide a copy of the release order at or near the time of release, return personal possessions and documents in their custody, and file a status report within seven days of adoption of the findings and recommendations. It also recommended an injunction against re-detention unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation, constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally justified, while excluding detention under different authority such as §§ 1226(c) and 1231. The Clerk of the Court would be directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendation rests on the statutory bond-hearing claim under § 1226(a), not a resolution of the Fifth Amendment due-process or other claims.
- The court treated interior apprehension and detention under § 1226(a) as triggering a bond hearing at the outset of detention, consistent with Rodriguez Vazquez and the majority of courts nationwide.
- Respondents' failure to allege flight risk, dangerousness, or an emergency supporting detention without a prior hearing supported the recommended release.
- The proposed re-detention restriction would require clear and convincing evidence at a constitutionally adequate hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that petitioner is a flight risk or danger such that his physical custody is legally justified.
- These are findings and recommendations subject to district-judge review, with objections due within seven days and responses due within seven days after service of objections.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the § 1226 detention framework to a noncitizen who had lived in the United States for years before an interior arrest, emphasizing that the government's own asserted detention authority carried an initial bond-hearing requirement. It also shows that a habeas court can recommend release on a statutory ground without deciding broader constitutional claims.
The proposed relief extends beyond release by addressing return of documents and possessions, later re-detention, and compliance reporting. But no final release judgment appears in this document: the recommendations remain subject to objections and adoption by the assigned district judge.