Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Migdalia Magaly Jimenez Domingo, a 34-year-old Guatemalan national, alleged that she entered the United States without inspection in October 2015 with her minor son. Both were detained, served Notices to Appear charging inadmissibility, and released on recognizance the next day. After an Immigration Judge denied asylum and ordered removal in March 2020, the Department of Homeland Security joined a motion to dismiss while the appeal was pending, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the proceedings without prejudice in August 2022. In February 2024 she affirmatively filed a new asylum application with USCIS, and in March 2025 she received employment authorization valid through March 2030.
She appeared for her USCIS asylum interview on October 6, 2026. According to the petition, the Asylum Office cancelled the interview and escorted her to ICE agents, who arrested her without providing her or her counsel a warrant or any indication of one. ICE issued a new Notice to Appear, and her removal case is pending with a master hearing set for December 3, 2026. She was taken to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center and, according to the petition, was hospitalized in late October for reasons unknown to counsel. She filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 raising substantive and procedural due process claims and challenging the warrantless arrest, seeking release without a monitoring device, declaratory relief, transfer of her removal proceedings, and fees. Respondents did not appear or respond by the court's deadline.
The Court’s Holding
The court first noted that Respondents' failure to respond does not by itself entitle a petitioner to relief, so it treated the petition's well-pleaded allegations as uncontested and reached the merits. Respondents had not identified their detention authority; 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) appeared to apply under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, but the constitutional analysis did not turn on which statute governed. Exhaustion is prudential and was not argued.
The court found it unclear whether her 2015 release conditions were restored after the 2022 dismissal and said she might hold a protected liberty interest either way; because Respondents did not contest the point, it assumed without deciding that she has one. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, it found that each favored her. Freedom from confinement is a substantial interest, heightened by her separation from two minor children; the risk of error was high because the record showed no explanation, custody determination, or hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, before or after arrest; and Respondents asserted no danger, flight risk, or other justification for detention. Detention without any process on this uncontested record therefore violated due process.
The court granted the petition in part. Respondents must forthwith release her on the conditions, if any, in effect immediately before the October 6 re-detention and file a status report within five days confirming compliance. Because release afforded complete relief, the court did not reach the warrantless arrest claim and declined to reach her other requests, and it denied all other relief. Any fee application under the Equal Access to Justice Act must be filed in accordance with that statute.
Key Takeaways
- This is an unreported district court order by a magistrate judge on an unopposed petition, so it carries persuasive value at most and is not binding precedent.
- Respondents' silence did not itself entitle the petitioner to relief; the court still examined the merits on the uncontested allegations.
- The court assumed without deciding that she holds a protected liberty interest, so the order does not definitively establish one.
- The uncontested absence of notice, custody determination, or hearing, together with no asserted danger or flight risk, led all three Mathews factors to favor release.
- Relief was release on prior conditions plus a compliance report; the court did not grant declaratory relief or transfer of her removal case, which remains pending.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Mathews v. Eldridge framework, which the Ninth Circuit used for immigration detention in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, to a person re-detained after years of release, and it cites a Western District of Washington decision, Tello Vazquez v. Mullin, for the point that delay in detaining a person can strengthen the liberty interest. Because the ruling rests on an uncontested record and an assumed liberty interest, its value for other re-detention petitions is limited.
Several matters remain open: whether her 2015 release conditions were restored, which statute governs her detention, whether the warrantless arrest was lawful, and the merits of her asylum application and removal case. The court cited Rodriguez Vazquez only for the view that section 1226(a) appears applicable and did not rest its due process ruling on it.