Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yeiner Sebastian Romero Aponte, proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California. It challenged his ongoing immigration detention at the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, and he filed a motion for a temporary restraining order alongside it. The order states that he was detained on September 4, 2026. Respondents, the warden and federal officials, maintained that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) was the basis for his detention and pointed out that he has a criminal history.
The court had already decided similar questions in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, D.L.C. v. Wofford and Altin v. Chestnut. In those cases it reasoned that due process requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which bond eligibility is considered, before the government may re-detain a noncitizen previously released on bond, conditional parole under § 1226(a), or humanitarian parole under § 1182(d)(5). On October 22, 2026, the court told the parties it was considering resolving the TRO motion and the petition together. It asked whether they objected and directed Respondents to identify any factual or legal issue distinguishing the case from its earlier orders. Respondents opposed on October 26 on the grounds the court had already rejected, while acknowledging that the case fits the category in which the court has treated a prior parole into the United States as more significant than the manner of entry.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both the habeas petition and the TRO motion and resolved them together. Citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, it stated that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the country are subject to discretionary detention under § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondents made no new legal arguments and identified no distinguishing facts, so the court granted relief for the reasons given in Altin.
On criminal history, the court found that Respondents mentioned it but neither argued nor explained why it makes the court's earlier due process holding inapplicable. It cited decisions from district courts within the Ninth Circuit requiring a pre-deprivation hearing even where a noncitizen is detained in connection with criminal matters, and concluded that Respondents had not shown the history diminishes the right. Following Altin, it held that immediate release is the proper remedy for the failure to provide a constitutionally compliant hearing. Because the petitioner is pro se and the relief was being granted, it did not wait for a reply brief, which would only have delayed that relief.
Romero Aponte must be released immediately on the same conditions that applied before September 4, 2026. No additional restriction, such as electronic monitoring, may be imposed unless a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing finds it necessary. Respondents must return his documents and possessions and file a notice of compliance within three days. Any re-detention requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter that considers bond. The order expressly does not address detention if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and receives notice of it. The other pending motions were denied as moot, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- In this court's view, noncitizens present without admission who are arrested in the interior of the country are held under the discretionary detention authority of § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Before re-detaining a noncitizen previously released on bond, conditional parole or humanitarian parole, the government must provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which bond eligibility is considered.
- Merely invoking a petitioner's criminal history does not defeat this right; the court faulted Respondents for offering no argument tying that history to the due process analysis.
- When the required hearing was not provided, the court treated immediate release on the prior conditions as the proper remedy, with no added restrictions such as electronic monitoring absent a later finding of necessity.
- The ruling does not decide whether Respondents may detain Romero Aponte if he becomes subject to an executable final removal order, and any re-detention for other reasons requires seven days' notice and a hearing.
Why It Matters
This is a short district court order that applies the same judge's earlier decisions rather than breaking new ground. Its authority beyond the parties is persuasive only. It shows that the court will rule directly on a habeas petition and TRO motion together when the government concedes its case fits the prior line of decisions and offers no new arguments. It also illustrates that a bare reference to criminal history will not distinguish a case from that line.
The practical effect is limited to this petitioner, who is released subject to the conditions described. Open questions include whether and how the government may seek re-detention through the required notice and hearing, and what happens if a final removal order becomes executable. The order leaves both to future proceedings.