Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, a native of India represented by counsel, entered the United States in June 2024 and was briefly detained before DHS released him on recognizance with Alternative to Detention monitoring and ICE check-ins. DHS charged him as present without admission or parole under INA section 212(a)(6)(A)(i). He applied for asylum, obtained work, and, according to the petition, complied with his release conditions. A DHS Form I-213 reflects a September 2025 arrest for petty theft, and ICE detained him after a scheduled check-in in November 2025.
He filed a 28 U.S.C. section 2241 petition in January 2026. Earlier interim relief was denied, and July 2026 findings recommended partial relief, concluding that mandatory detention under section 1226(c)(1)(E) applied but that continued detention had become unreasonable. The criminal case was then dismissed after Petitioner completed diversion and a Theft Awareness Program, and the BIA dismissed his appeal on August 26, 2026. September 2026 amended findings recommended dismissal as moot, reasoning that detention authority had shifted to section 1231. Petitioner objected and reported that the Ninth Circuit had temporarily stayed removal under General Order 6.4 while his emergency stay motion is pending. Respondents filed no reply.
The Court’s Holding
This is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, not a final judgment. The magistrate judge vacated the September 2026 recommendation of dismissal and recommends granting the petition in part. On statutory authority, the recommendation concludes that section 1226(c)(1)(E) is inapplicable. Relying on the cited decisions, it reads the Laken Riley Act's present-tense language to require mandatory detention only while qualifying charges remain pending or end in a way that triggers another clause, such as a conviction, and Respondents conceded that section 1226(c) no longer applies after the dismissal. Section 1231 does not govern because, with the Ninth Circuit stay, section 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii) appears applicable and the removal period has not begun. Section 1225(b) does not apply either. Relying on a recent Eastern District decision, the recommendation finds detention is governed by the discretionary scheme of section 1226(a) and that Petitioner is entitled to relief on Count Three.
On procedural due process (Count Two), the recommendation reasons that releasing a noncitizen pending removal proceedings creates an implicit promise of re-detention only if release conditions are violated, giving the person a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. Because Respondents identified nothing distinguishing the case from earlier habeas grants, it recommends that Respondents provide an individualized hearing before an immigration judge at which the government must prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence. It recommends denying the request for a ruling on objections and immediate release, so no release order is proposed. On substantive due process (Count One), it recommends no relief, reasoning that claims that detention is punitive or excessive are what bond hearings are for.
Any party may file objections within fourteen days of service, with replies due fourteen days after objections are served. Failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- This is a magistrate judge's recommendation that has no effect unless the assigned district judge adopts it, and it remains subject to objections.
- The recommendation treats Laken Riley Act mandatory detention as ending once the qualifying charge is dismissed, a point Respondents conceded here.
- A Ninth Circuit stay of removal, even a temporary one under General Order 6.4, kept the case outside section 1231 because the removal period had not begun.
- The proposed remedy is a bond hearing before an immigration judge with the burden on the government by clear and convincing evidence, not immediate release.
- The substantive due process claim was not accepted, because the recommendation viewed bond hearings as the answer to claims of excessive detention.
Why It Matters
The recommendation shows how this court is handling detention challenges after a Laken Riley Act charge disappears. It follows the court's own earlier grants of relief and decisions from other courts in the district rather than breaking new ground. It also illustrates how quickly the governing detention statute can shift as removal proceedings progress, since the proposed outcome turned on the Ninth Circuit's stay.
The document is unpublished and nonprecedential, and as a recommendation it carries no binding weight. Open questions include whether the district judge adopts it, the outcome of the pending Ninth Circuit petition and stay request, and the result of any bond hearing, which the recommendation does not predict.