Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Alberto M.P. entered the United States without admission in September 2016 and resided continuously in Utah for a decade, living with family, working, filing taxes, and establishing community ties. He has no criminal history. On July 23, 2026, he was arrested during a traffic stop and transferred to ICE custody the following day. ICE initiated removal proceedings but detained him without notice, an initial custody determination, or a bond hearing. The record contains no Form I-286 or other evidence of a custody determination, and the government did not produce one despite a court order to do so. Petitioner filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging the constitutionality of his prolonged detention without a hearing.
The parties agreed that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), that he is entitled to a custody hearing, and that he has not received one in over three months of detention. Respondents argued that Petitioner was not entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing because he was allegedly unknown to immigration authorities and that § 1226(a) procedural protections are facially constitutional. However, Respondents acknowledged Petitioner's entitlement to a custody determination hearing but did not address the fact that none had been provided for over three months. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to evaluate the procedural due process claim.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Petitioner possesses a protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, strengthened by his decade-long residence, family ties, employment, tax compliance, and clean criminal record. Applying the three Mathews factors, the court found Petitioner's private interest in liberty is substantial and has been significantly impacted by three months of detention; the risk of erroneous deprivation is considerable given the complete absence of any hearing and the government's failure to comply with statutory safeguards under § 1226(a), including notice and an initial custody determination; and the government's interest in detention without a hearing is nil, as it has not alleged Petitioner is a danger or flight risk and the burden of providing routine notice and hearing procedures is minimal.
Accordingly, the court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner, return all documents and possessions, and file a notice of compliance within two court days. The court further enjoined Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner under § 1226(a) absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections, including a minimum of seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder where the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that detention is justified and no alternative can mitigate the risk. The court granted Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denied his motions for a temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) for over three months without any custody hearing or initial custody determination violates both statutory requirements and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- The government's failure to provide notice or a hearing, coupled with the absence of any showing of dangerousness or flight risk, renders the detention constitutionally infirm under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test.
- Courts will enjoin re-detention unless the government provides at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder where it must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention is necessary and no alternative exists.
- Long-term community ties, family relationships, employment history, tax compliance, and lack of criminal history strengthen a noncitizen's protected liberty interest in freedom from immigration detention.
- The government's interest in immigration enforcement does not outweigh the requirement to follow its own statutory procedures for custody determinations and bond hearings.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that prolonged immigration detention without a hearing is unconstitutional even under § 1226(a), which governs discretionary detention during removal proceedings. The court's injunction requiring seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing with a clear-and-convincing standard before a neutral factfinder sets a robust procedural floor for future detentions. The ruling aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent in Hernandez v. Sessions and Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, and district court decisions in Zurita Navarro and Manzanarez, establishing that statutory noncompliance combined with prolonged deprivation triggers habeas relief. The decision underscores that the government cannot indefinitely detain individuals without affording the procedural safeguards Congress mandated and the Constitution requires.