Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Nelson Dario Castro Alfaro, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States on March 25, 2023, and filed an asylum application with USCIS on December 10, 2024. On February 19, 2026, he was convicted in California state court of possession of child pornography under Cal. Penal Code § 311.11(a) and robbery under Cal. Penal Code § 211. He was transferred directly from state custody to ICE custody on June 30, 2026, and served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present without admission or parole. On July 8, 2026, the NTA was amended to add a charge of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) for lacking a valid entry document.
Alfaro filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release, arguing that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. Respondents filed a combined motion to dismiss and answer, arguing that detention without a hearing was lawful under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(E). The court rejected the applicability of § 1226(c)(1)(A) but found detention proper under § 1226(c)(1)(E).
The Court’s Holding
The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A) did not apply because the NTA did not cite § 1182(a)(2) or mention Alfaro's criminal convictions, following its prior reasoning in Rosas v. Warden, Martinez Bermudez v. Andrews, and Contreras Contreras v. Wofford. However, the court found that Alfaro's robbery conviction subjected him to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E), which applies to noncitizens charged as inadmissible under §§ 1182(a)(6)(A) or (a)(7) who are convicted of offenses constituting the essential elements of burglary, theft, or larceny. Because Alfaro was charged under both inadmissibility provisions and convicted of robbery, § 1226(c)(1)(E) controlled his detention.
The court acknowledged that prolonged detention without a bond hearing may violate due process under Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez v. Marin) and the multi-factor test from Martinez v. Clark. However, it found that Alfaro had been detained for only approximately four months, which falls within the period the Supreme Court deemed acceptable in Demore v. Kim (538 U.S. 510 (2003)). Alfaro failed to make any showing under the Martinez factors—including length of detention, likely future duration, comparison to criminal sentence, nature of crimes, conditions of detention, delays caused by either party, and likelihood of removal—to establish that his detention had become unconstitutionally prolonged. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without prejudice and the TRO denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A) requires the NTA to cite § 1182(a)(2) or reference the criminal convictions triggering inadmissibility; absence of such charges renders the provision inapplicable.
- Robbery constitutes an offense involving the essential elements of theft or larceny under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E), triggering mandatory detention for noncitizens charged as inadmissible under §§ 1182(a)(6)(A) or (a)(7).
- Due process challenges to prolonged mandatory detention under § 1226(c) are evaluated under the eight-factor Martinez v. Clark test, but detention of approximately four months is presumptively reasonable under Demore v. Kim.
- A habeas petitioner bears the burden of presenting evidence on the Martinez factors to show detention has become unreasonably prolonged; failure to do so warrants dismissal without prejudice.
- The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of refiling if detention continues and the petitioner can make the requisite factual showing.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the interplay between two mandatory detention provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1), holding that § 1226(c)(1)(E) operates independently of § 1226(c)(1)(A) and can authorize detention based on a robbery conviction even when the NTA does not charge criminal-ground inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(2). The ruling reinforces the government's authority to detain noncitizens with theft-related convictions during removal proceedings without a bond hearing, at least for periods consistent with Demore v. Kim.
The decision also underscores the petitioner's burden to develop a factual record on the Martinez factors to sustain an as-applied due process challenge, rather than relying on facial constitutional arguments. The dismissal without prejudice preserves the petitioner's right to seek relief if detention extends significantly beyond the current four-month period.