Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Moises Ferreira Honorio Martins, a Brazilian national, alleged in his habeas petition that he entered the United States in 2019 with his father, was briefly detained by Customs and Border Protection, and was then released on his own recognizance and placed in removal proceedings. The order notes that the recognizance order states it was issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The petition further alleged that he worked in a restaurant after release, that a criminal charge filed in August 2025 was dropped in November 2025, and that ICE arrested him the same day as he left the courthouse. By the time of the order he had been detained for nearly a year while removal proceedings continued.
Martins claimed that revoking his conditional parole without notice or an opportunity to be heard violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. According to the order, Respondents did not substantively oppose that claim. They argued only that his detention was under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and that, under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), he could seek a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. The court described the petition as raising claims functionally identical to those it and other judges in the district had already addressed.
The Court’s Holding
The court treated the statutory question as settled. As Respondents acknowledged, the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez Vazquez rejected the argument that noncitizens present without admission and arrested in the interior may be mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(2). Martins's detention was therefore governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond or conditional parole.
On due process, the court reasoned that the Ninth Circuit has found a post-detention bond hearing generally sufficient under § 1226(a) but has not foreclosed as-applied challenges, quoting Perez Bueno v. Janecka. Where a noncitizen was previously released on recognizance under § 1226(a), the court held, due process requires notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before conditional parole is summarily revoked, citing three May 2026 Eastern District decisions. Martins was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before his arrest, and Respondents had not argued that urgent concerns would justify only post-deprivation process, citing Voldemir N.D.C. The failure to provide a pre-deprivation hearing entitled him to relief on his procedural due process claim.
The court granted the petition and ordered immediate release, without additional restrictions unless later found necessary at a future custody hearing. It permanently enjoined re-arrest or re-detention absent constitutional protections, at minimum pre-deprivation notice describing the changed circumstances and a timely hearing. At that hearing the Government bears the burden of showing danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, and Martins may have counsel present. The clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment for Petitioner, and all pending motions were resolved.
Key Takeaways
- The order treats a person previously released on recognizance under § 1226(a) as entitled to notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before ICE revokes that release and re-arrests him.
- The court relied on the Ninth Circuit's rejection of mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) for people present without admission and arrested in the interior, so § 1226(a) governed.
- Relief was limited to this petitioner: release, a permanent injunction against re-detention without notice and a timely hearing with a clear-and-convincing burden on the Government, and entry of judgment. His removal proceedings were not decided.
- The ruling rested in part on Respondents' failure to substantively oppose the due process claim or identify urgent concerns, so it may carry less force where the government contests those points.
Why It Matters
The order is an unreported district court ruling and is not binding precedent, though it joins other Eastern District decisions it cites that apply the same pre-deprivation requirement to people re-detained after release on recognizance. Its practical value lies in specifying the process owed: notice of changed circumstances, a timely hearing, and a heightened burden on the Government.
Open questions remain. The order does not resolve whether Martins may be removed, and it contemplates that a future custody hearing could justify restrictions or re-detention if the Government meets its burden. Because the government largely did not oppose the due process claim, the analysis is brief and may be tested in contested cases.