Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Najmul Hasan A. entered the United States on a valid student visa on December 21, 2021, and resided in Buffalo, New York, where he attended school, worked with valid authorization, paid taxes, joined a religious community, became engaged, and filed a pending asylum application. He has no criminal history. On June 11, 2026, ICE detained him during a targeted operation conducted "in response to the President's declaration of a national emergency related to illegal immigration," issuing a Notice to Appear the same day. Petitioner described the arrest as violent, involving unidentified individuals with covered faces and an unmarked vehicle, resulting in a knee injury. He was transferred from Batavia Detention Center to Arizona and ultimately to the Central Valley Annex.
On July 30, 2026, an immigration judge denied Petitioner's request for custody redetermination. The entirety of the IJ's reasoning consisted of the single phrase: "Flight risk." Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition on August 25, 2026, challenging the lawfulness of his civil immigration detention under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, as well as the Fourth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The matter was fully briefed before Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Petitioner possesses a protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, emphasizing his nearly five years of lawful presence, community ties, employment, and pending asylum application. Applying the three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge test, the court found Petitioner's private interest in liberty substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation high, and the government's interest in bypassing procedural safeguards low. The IJ's conclusory one-line decision—"Flight risk"—failed to meaningfully consider the nine In re Guerra factors or provide any reasoned explanation, constituting an abuse of discretion and violating due process. The court granted the petition and ordered Petitioner's immediate release.
The court further enjoined Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 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 its interest in public safety or ensuring appearance outweighs Petitioner's liberty interest such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk. Petitioner shall be allowed counsel at any such hearing. The court denied Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order, motion to appoint counsel, and request for ruling as moot, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- An immigration judge's one-word or one-line denial of bond without reasoned analysis of the In re Guerra factors constitutes an abuse of discretion and violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- Noncitizens with substantial ties to the United States—including lawful entry, long-term residence, employment, family connections, and pending asylum claims—possess a robust liberty interest protected by due process.
- The government must provide a pre-deprivation hearing with seven days' notice, a neutral decisionmaker, clear and convincing evidence, and the right to counsel before detaining or re-detaining a noncitizen under § 1226(a).
- Conclusory findings of "flight risk" without explanation of how the IJ weighed evidence or considered alternatives to detention fail constitutional scrutiny under Mathews v. Eldridge.
- The court's injunction against re-detention without full procedural safeguards establishes a binding framework for future custody determinations in this case.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that procedural due process in immigration detention requires meaningful, individualized determinations—not boilerplate conclusions. By mandating a pre-deprivation hearing with heightened evidentiary standards (clear and convincing evidence) and specific procedural protections (seven-day notice, neutral factfinder, right to counsel), the court aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent in Martinez v. Clark and Hernandez v. Sessions while extending practical safeguards. The ruling underscores that even noncitizens subject to removal retain constitutional liberty interests that cannot be extinguished by cursory administrative orders, particularly where the detainee has built a substantial life in the United States over years of lawful presence.