Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carlos Arquime Portillo Nunez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 1991. In 2008 an immigration judge denied his asylum application and ordered him removed; DHS records indicate the order was entered in absentia and he was not actually removed. He later sustained criminal convictions, including 2014 state sex-offense convictions and a 2025 misdemeanor vehicle theft conviction. An immigration judge released him on a $5,000 bond in 2014, and in July 2023 dismissed his removal proceedings, after which ICE canceled the bond while he remained at liberty with his U.S.-citizen wife and children.
On April 21, 2026, ICE arrested him without incident during a fugitive operation at his home. DHS issued a notice to appear charging inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) for lack of valid entry documents, and an administrative arrest warrant whose certificate of service reflects service that day. He remains detained, with an individual hearing in his removal case set for November 13, 2026.
His counseled habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, filed October 9, 2026, alleged in Ground 1 a warrantless arrest violating 8 U.S.C. sections 1226(a) and 1357(a)(2); in Ground 2 a procedural due process violation from arrest without a pre-deprivation hearing; and in Ground 3 a substantive due process violation because he is neither dangerous nor a flight risk. After filing, DHS scheduled a Rodriguez bond hearing for October 30, 2026. Respondents sought denial or a stay pending that hearing and appeared to argue that section 1226(c) mandates detention; Petitioner disputes that.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Ground 1. Respondents' Answer attached an administrative arrest warrant issued on the date of arrest, with a certificate of service showing same-day service. The Reply did not appear to dispute the certificate's accuracy, arguing instead that the warrant must have been issued after the arrest because Petitioner received it only at the detention facility. The court was unconvinced that service minutes or hours after arrest necessarily means issuance after arrest, and it distinguished Petitioner's cited cases, where no warrant had issued or none was produced. Because the warrant was in the record and its prompt service was undisputed, Petitioner had not shown entitlement to relief.
The court dismissed Grounds 2 and 3 without prejudice. It reasoned that the October 30 Rodriguez hearing, where the government must show flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence, could materially affect the due process claims. Petitioner argued the immigration judge would lack authority beyond a limited Joseph inquiry if section 1226(c) applies, but the court understood from past district practice that the government generally provides substantive Rodriguez hearings after six months even to section 1226(c) detainees. Whether the hearing is prompt and what analysis the judge conducts bear on the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing. Petitioner may file a new habeas petition after the hearing.
The court did not decide whether section 1226(c) applies, reach the merits of the constitutional claims, or order release.
Key Takeaways
- Ground 1 failed because Respondents produced an administrative arrest warrant with a same-day certificate of service that the Reply did not appear to dispute.
- Service of a warrant at the detention facility after arrest does not by itself show it was issued after the arrest.
- Grounds 2 and 3 were dismissed without prejudice rather than decided, leaving Petitioner free to file a new petition after the October 30, 2026 hearing.
- The order leaves open whether section 1226(c) mandates Petitioner's detention and what the bond hearing produced.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order by a magistrate judge sitting on the parties' consent. It has no precedential weight and is persuasive at most. Its practical lesson is evidentiary: when the government attaches an administrative arrest warrant with a certificate of service, a petitioner alleging a warrantless arrest needs evidence that the warrant postdates the arrest, not just an inference from when it was served.
The order also shows one court's handling of detention due process claims filed shortly before a scheduled bond hearing: dismissal without prejudice rather than adjudication, based on the court's understanding of local practice. The outcome of the October 30 hearing, the section 1226(c) dispute, and any renewed constitutional claims remain open; the notice to appear itself was not in the record.