Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The petitioner, a Mexican citizen, alleges he entered the United States without inspection around 2001 and has lived here continuously since. ICE encountered him on May 31, 2026, after a local arrest and served a warrant and a Notice to Appear charging him as removable for being present without admission or parole. A Notice of Custody Determination dated August 6, 2026 states an officer decided under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 that he would stay detained during removal proceedings. The form bears a handwritten officer name differing from the printed one, no signature, and a notation that he requested immigration judge review. He says he has had no hearing and is held at the Central Valley Annex.
His 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, received July 22, 2026, claims substantive and procedural due process violations and seeks release. The court asked respondents to explain whether the case differs materially from its earlier decisions in Rivas Garcia and Guillermo R.R. Respondents said detention rested on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) but conceded that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock holds § 1226 governs and that he may seek a custody redetermination hearing. He replied that the government cannot shift between inconsistent provisions and that he had already requested a hearing. He also moved for judgment on the pleadings.
The Court’s Holding
This is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, not an order, and nothing has been adopted. The magistrate judge first found that respondents did not certify the true cause of detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, because they invoked § 1225(b)(2)(A) while unexplainedly submitting documents supporting detention under § 1226(a). That alone, the report said, may suffice to grant the writ, but it went on to address due process.
Adopting the Mathews v. Eldridge reasoning of Garcia Flores and Ramirez Godinez on this record, the report found a protected and substantial liberty interest given more than two decades of residence. It found a high risk of erroneous deprivation because he was entitled to § 1226(a) procedures, including a prompt immigration judge bond hearing, and received none. It found the government's interest in detention without those safeguards minimal. It did not reach substantive due process. Citing Zurita Navarro, it concluded that a hearing more than four months in would not cure the violation, particularly since he requested one and never received it.
Recommended relief: grant the petition and the motion for judgment on the pleadings; release him immediately with his documents and possessions; impose no restrictions unless found necessary at a future hearing; and bar re-detention without seven days' written notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, where respondents bear the burden on flight risk or danger. The order would not address detention after an executable final removal order and notice. Fees and costs would be denied without prejudice to a properly supported motion. Respondents would file a compliance notice within three days of adoption, and judgment would be entered and the case closed. Objections are due within three days of service.
Key Takeaways
- A return that invokes one detention statute while attaching documents supporting another may fail to certify the true cause of detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
- The report treats a long-resident noncitizen held under § 1226(a) without the required custody procedures as suffering a procedural due process violation under a Mathews analysis.
- In the report's view, belated compliance does not cure the violation, so release rather than a late bond hearing is the recommended remedy.
- The recommendation is not final: the district judge must still rule on it, and the suggested bar on re-detention is conditional and does not address a later executable final removal order.
Why It Matters
The report applies the court's own earlier district rulings, which are not binding precedent, and treats Rodriguez Vazquez as controlling on § 1226 coverage while rejecting after-the-fact hearings as a cure. It shows how the court may respond when a requested hearing never occurred.
Because it is only a magistrate judge's recommendation, its force depends on adoption by the district judge, and objections could change the outcome. Practically, the reasoning matters to others held in similar circumstances in this district, but each case turns on its record, including established ties and whether the required custody procedures were actually provided.