Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Juan Andres Picon Osuna, a citizen of Venezuela, lawfully entered the United States as a visitor in 2017 at age 14. He applied for asylum as a dependent on his father's application, and both applications remain pending. In August 2022, he was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which was terminated on November 20, 2025, though he retained employment authorization documents valid through 2030. On October 2, 2026, immigration authorities arrested Petitioner at Los Angeles International Airport as he boarded a domestic flight, issuing a warrant, a notice of custody determination, and a Form I-213.
Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 8, 2026, raising two claims: a due process violation and a failure to make an initial custody determination. Respondents acknowledged Petitioner appeared entitled to an initial bond hearing but contended his detention was proper as a visa overstay who had not been previously detained. The matter was fully briefed with a response and traverse before Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver ruled on October 21, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition on the due process claim, finding Petitioner possessed a protected liberty interest in remaining free from custody because the government acquiesced to his continued presence through the approval of TPS, employment authorization, and the pendency of his asylum application. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent and district court decisions such as Zhao v. Janecha and Avalo Jimenez v. Chestnut, the court held that this acquiescence vested a liberty interest triggering due process protections.
Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found Petitioner's private interest in liberty was substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because he received no pre- or post-deprivation hearing, and the government's interest in detention without procedural safeguards was low given that bond hearings are routine and impose minimal burden. The court rejected Respondents' exhaustion argument, ruling exhaustion is prudential and excused for constitutional challenges an immigration judge lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate. The court ordered Petitioner's immediate release on reasonable conditions, enjoined re-detention without due process compliance, and required a notice of compliance within two court days. The court also found the remaining claim moot and directed entry of judgment in Petitioner's favor.
Key Takeaways
- Government acquiescence to a noncitizen's presence through TPS, work authorization, and pending asylum applications can vest a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause.
- Detention without any bond hearing violates due process when the Mathews v. Eldridge factors weigh in the detainee's favor, particularly where the government's interest is low and the risk of erroneous deprivation is high.
- Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for constitutional due process challenges that immigration judges lack jurisdiction to decide.
- The court ordered immediate release on reasonable conditions and enjoined future detention absent strict due process compliance.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle that the government cannot indefinitely detain noncitizens who have been permitted to live and work in the United States for extended periods without providing basic procedural protections. By applying the Mathews framework to a TPS recipient with pending asylum claims, the court joins a growing body of Ninth Circuit district court rulings recognizing that executive branch acquiescence creates liberty interests that trigger due process requirements. The ruling also clarifies that constitutional challenges to detention procedures need not be exhausted administratively when the immigration court lacks jurisdiction over such claims, preserving federal court access for detainees raising structural due process violations.