Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kenny Rene Salazar-Medina, a Nicaraguan citizen, entered the United States in 2022, was briefly detained, and was paroled into the country on December 21, 2022, under INA § 212(d)(5)(A). According to his verified petition, he was not served with a Notice to Appear then but was told to check in with ICE periodically. He filed an asylum application in November 2023, completed biometrics, obtained an employment authorization document valid until May 2029, and has no criminal arrests or convictions. Respondents did not answer the petition or dispute these allegations, so the court treated them as undisputed under Local Rule 7-12 and Ninth Circuit authority that unrebutted habeas allegations are assumed true.
On August 11, 2026, he reported when asked to attend the Los Angeles ICE office, was detained, and was transferred to the Adelanto Detention Center, where he was then served with a Notice to Appear. At a September 8, 2026 custody hearing, an immigration judge denied bond for lack of jurisdiction, relying on Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025). His appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remains pending. He filed a verified petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 1, 2026, asserting due process, Fourth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims. Respondents missed the October 8 answer deadline, and the parties consented to a magistrate judge deciding the case for all purposes.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition on a procedural due process theory and ordered immediate release. Applying the three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge test, it found first that Salazar-Medina had a substantial liberty interest in remaining out of custody, based on his prior release on parole, roughly four years in the United States, community ties and compliance with release conditions. Second, it found a high risk of erroneous deprivation, because he received no process to test whether detention served the goals of preventing flight or danger, and the immigration judge held he could not consider bond. Nothing in the record showed changed circumstances or that the purpose of parole had been accomplished. Third, it found the government's interest in detaining him without a hearing low, because custody hearings are routine and the burden minimal.
As remedy, the court ordered Respondents to release him immediately, subject only to any conditions in place before the August 11, 2026 detention, and to return confiscated property, including his work authorization card. It also entered a limited permanent injunction under the eBay factors. Respondents may not re-detain him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 without at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. At that hearing the government must show by clear and convincing evidence a material change in circumstances making him a flight risk or danger that no conditions could address. Respondents must file a notice of compliance within twenty-four hours. The court did not separately address the Fourth Amendment or APA claims, and it said it would consider an EAJA fee application filed within 30 days of final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- On unrebutted allegations, a paroled noncitizen who lived in the community for years, with no criminal history and full compliance with conditions, was found to hold a substantial liberty interest protected by due process.
- The court held that arresting him without a pre-deprivation hearing violated procedural due process, and it ordered release to restore the last uncontested status.
- An immigration judge's bond denial for lack of jurisdiction under Matter of Q. Li left him with no process to test whether detention was necessary, which weighed heavily in the court's analysis.
- Any re-detention under § 1226 now requires seven days' notice and a hearing at which the government bears a clear-and-convincing burden to show changed circumstances.
- The relief is specific to this petitioner and rests largely on facts the government did not contest; the Board of Immigration Appeals appeal and any fee request remain open.
Why It Matters
The order adds to a line of Central District of California decisions, cited at length in the opinion, that grant release and prospective relief to paroled noncitizens re-detained without a hearing. It shows district courts treating an immigration judge's lack of bond jurisdiction under Matter of Q. Li as evidence of a high risk of erroneous deprivation rather than as a bar to federal habeas relief.
Its reach is limited. It is a district court order by a magistrate judge acting on consent and does not bind other courts. It rests on facts deemed undisputed because Respondents filed no answer, and it does not reach the Fourth Amendment or APA claims. A fuller government record could change the analysis in other cases. Whether higher courts will endorse the pre-deprivation hearing requirement and the clear-and-convincing standard remains open.