Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States in 2004 and was not admitted or paroled after inspection. He was placed in removal proceedings for being present without admission or parole. On February 23, 2023, an immigration judge denied his asylum and withholding of removal claims and ordered him removed to Guatemala. His appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals has been pending for more than three years. The findings state that he has no criminal history.
Based on an administrative arrest warrant, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Petitioner on August 31, 2026, on his way to work in Florida. The same day he was served a Notice of Custody Determination and requested a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. The record contains no evidence that he received any such hearing during the almost two months he has been held at the California City Immigration Detention Center in this district. He filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and Respondent's answer concedes that he is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge inferred from the undisputed facts that Petitioner was at liberty in the community when arrested and had previously been released on an explicit or implicit finding that he was neither dangerous nor a flight risk. Consistent with the court's rulings in substantively identical cases, the findings conclude that under the Mathews factors his re-arrest without pre-deprivation notice and a hearing violated his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The analysis relies on Kaur, Juan Carlos V.B., and Charan S. rather than walking through each factor. Kaur involved re-detention of a noncitizen previously released under § 1226(a) without a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
On remedy, the findings invoke Zinermon v. Burch for the principle that the Constitution usually requires a hearing before a deprivation of liberty, with post-deprivation remedies a special case. The assigned District Judge has treated such remedies as appropriate only given particular circumstances, such as a final order of removal, criminal history, or individualized changed circumstances. Because Respondent offered no argument that a pre-deprivation hearing was infeasible, the magistrate judge found immediate release warranted.
The recommended relief is to grant the petition on claim one, order immediate release and return of Petitioner's documents and possessions, and have the Clerk serve the detention center with any release order. If the government seeks to re-detain him, it must give at least seven days' notice and a bond hearing before an immigration judge, where it must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger. Any final order should not address detention if he becomes subject to an executable final removal order and receives notice of it. The remaining claims were not addressed, and the Clerk would enter judgment and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- This is a recommendation to the assigned District Judge, not a final order, so release and judgment follow only if the recommendations are adopted.
- The findings treat the re-arrest of a previously released noncitizen without pre-deprivation notice and a hearing as a procedural due process violation under the Mathews factors.
- Post-deprivation process is treated as a special case, and Respondent's failure to argue that a pre-deprivation hearing was infeasible mattered to the remedy.
- The proposed conditions on any future re-detention are seven days' notice and a bond hearing at which the government bears a clear-and-convincing burden.
- Objections are due within three days of service, and failure to object in time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.
Why It Matters
The findings add to a line of Eastern District of California rulings applying Mathews to the re-detention of noncitizens previously released under § 1226(a). They rest largely on the same court's earlier reasoning rather than new analysis. The facts here, including a pending Board of Immigration Appeals appeal, no criminal history and no hearing despite a request, may limit how far the reasoning extends.
Open matters include whether the District Judge adopts the recommendations, any objections from the parties, the unaddressed remaining claims, and the government's authority to detain Petitioner if an executable final removal order later issues. As magistrate judge findings, they carry no binding precedential weight.