Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
James Purizaga-Alzamora, who is proceeding without counsel, petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for habeas relief and moved for a temporary restraining order, challenging his immigration detention. The order states that he was admitted in February 2001 on a visa valid through August 27, 2001, and overstayed it. He was detained in December 2025. The court noted that, under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, visa overstayers are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Count One raised a due process claim the court had already addressed in Oliveira Tinoco v. Albarran, Kaur v. Chestnut, and Zhou v. Warden. Those orders held that a noncitizen admitted on a visa but not detained within a reasonable time after lawful status ended develops a vested liberty interest in remaining free, so the government must give adequate notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter at which bond is considered. Respondents opposed the restraining order, arguing that Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) and already received a post-deprivation bond hearing, and asserting that he has a substantial criminal history. The court found that Respondents identified no fact or legal issue distinguishing the earlier orders and did not explain why the asserted criminal history made them inapplicable. Respondents also said they did not oppose a ruling directly on the petition, so the court did not wait for a reply.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition and the restraining-order motion as to Count One for the reasons stated in Oliveira Tinoco. Because Respondents offered no new legal argument and no distinguishing facts, and did not show how criminal history bore on the need to detain Petitioner without a prior hearing, the court concluded that the asserted history did not diminish his right to a pre-deprivation bond hearing. It cited other district court decisions ordering release in similar circumstances. Having granted relief on due process, it did not address the petition's remaining grounds.
The remedy is return to the status quo ante litem, meaning Petitioner's last uncontested status before detention. The court ordered immediate release on the same conditions that applied before his December 2025 detention, with no added restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a future pre-deprivation hearing finds them necessary. Respondents must return his identification, passport, work permit, Social Security card, and other possessions, and file a notice of compliance within three days. Any re-detention requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter that considers bond eligibility. The order does not address detention if Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final removal order and receives notice of it. The separate pending motion (Doc. No. 2) was denied as moot, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated a visa overstayer who was not detained within a reasonable time after status expired as holding a vested liberty interest that calls for notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing.
- An unexplained reference to criminal history did not defeat that entitlement, because the government did not argue how the history affected the analysis.
- The government's point that Petitioner had received a post-deprivation bond hearing did not change the result.
- Relief was return to the status quo ante, with no added restrictions absent a future hearing, and re-detention requires seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing.
- The order leaves open detention after an executable final removal order and does not decide the petition's other counts.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order and is not binding precedent. It applies the court's own earlier rulings and cites persuasive decisions from other district courts. The Ninth Circuit authority it cites, Rodriguez Vazquez, is used for the statutory point that § 1226 reaches visa overstayers, not for the pre-deprivation hearing requirement.
Its practical value is as an example of how this court is quickly resolving a recurring group of immigration habeas petitions when the government offers no distinguishing facts. The court emphasized the government's failure to develop an argument about criminal history, so the order does not decide how a fully developed showing on that point would be treated, and it leaves the petition's remaining counts undecided.