Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Sam Waya, a native of Sudan, entered the United States in 2003 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2006. In June 2021, he was convicted of Attempted Rape under Utah Code § 76-5-402 and sentenced to an indeterminate term of three years to life in prison. After being released on parole, Waya was encountered by ICE during a parole check-in on July 22, 2026, and placed in removal proceedings. He was charged as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his conviction for an aggravated felony.
While in ICE custody, Waya received a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ) on September 3, 2026. The IJ denied bond, determining that Waya's conviction constituted an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(A) and a crime involving moral turpitude, triggering mandatory detention under both 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B) and (C). On October 5, 2026, the IJ ordered Waya removed to Sudan, and he waived his right to appeal. Waya then filed a habeas petition in federal district court, arguing that his detention without a meaningful bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition without prejudice. It first noted that it need not independently determine the applicability of § 1226(c)(1)(C) because the Immigration Court had already found Waya subject to mandatory detention after a bond hearing. The court then addressed Waya's as-applied due process challenge to prolonged mandatory detention, acknowledging Ninth Circuit precedent expressing "grave doubts" about the constitutionality of arbitrary prolonged detention without process. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test adopted by most district courts in the Ninth Circuit, the court weighed three factors: the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government's interest.
The court found all three factors weighed in favor of the government. Waya had been detained for only two months, a period within the timeframe the Supreme Court deemed acceptable in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), when upholding the facial constitutionality of § 1226(c). The risk of erroneous deprivation was low because an IJ had already determined his detention was proper and ordered his removal. Finally, the government's interest in ensuring the appearance of an inadmissible individual convicted of a serious crime was high. The court concluded that requiring additional process at this juncture did not outweigh the government's interest, rendering Waya's current detention lawful.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petition challenging mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) may be denied without prejudice where the petitioner has already received a bond hearing and an Immigration Judge has affirmed mandatory detention.
- Two months of detention pending removal proceedings does not, by itself, constitute a due process violation under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test when the detainee has been convicted of a serious aggravated felony.
- District courts in the Ninth Circuit apply the Mathews v. Eldridge framework to as-applied due process challenges to prolonged mandatory detention, rather than adopting a bright-line time limit.
- The government's interest in detaining inadmissible noncitizens with serious criminal convictions is a significant factor weighing against release in the early stages of removal proceedings.
- The court explicitly declined to second-guess the Immigration Judge's determination that the petitioner's conviction triggered mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(C).
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the prevailing standard in the Eastern District of California for evaluating as-applied due process challenges to mandatory immigration detention. By applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and emphasizing the short duration of detention (two months), the prior bond hearing before an IJ, and the final removal order, the court demonstrates that early-stage detention of aggravated felons rarely violates due process.
The ruling aligns with Demore v. Kim and Ninth Circuit precedent while acknowledging the circuit's "grave doubts" about indefinite detention, leaving the door open for future challenges if detention becomes unreasonably prolonged. The denial without prejudice preserves the petitioner's ability to re-file if circumstances change.