Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aron Michael Swing, a citizen of Hong Kong, was admitted to the United States on an F-1 student visa in 2017. In July 2022, the Department of Homeland Security granted him employment authorization under Deferred Enforced Departure benefits for Hong Kong residents, valid from July 25, 2022, through February 5, 2023. In October 2022 he failed to enroll in school as required to maintain his F-1 status, and in April 2024 the Department of State terminated that status. On August 13, 2026, immigration authorities detained him and charged him with inadmissibility for failing to maintain student status.
On September 4, 2026, Swing was released on a $5,000 bond after a custody redetermination hearing, conditioned on enrollment in the Alternatives to Detention program and the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP). Those programs require a non-removable GPS ankle bracelet, home visits every twelve weeks, and in-person reporting every eight weeks, and a curfew may be imposed. Neither party reserved a right to appeal, so the bond determination is administratively final. Swing had filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a temporary restraining order motion on August 24, 2026, alleging that detaining him without prior notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing violated due process. Respondents argued the detention was lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and, after his release, that the petition was moot.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that the petition was not moot. A habeas petition stays live after release if a collateral consequence can be redressed by success on the petition. Agreeing with numerous district courts that have treated ankle monitoring and ISAP supervision as satisfying the custody requirement, the court concluded that ISAP's electronic monitoring and reporting obligations are ongoing custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Release under an administratively final bond order therefore did not end the controversy.
On the merits, the court followed its own recent decisions, including Oliveira Tinoco v. Albarran, holding that noncitizens admitted on a visa who are not detained within a reasonable time after their lawful status ends acquire a vested liberty interest in remaining free from detention. Due process therefore requires adequate notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before detention. Swing was detained nearly four years after he stopped enrolling and more than two years after his F-1 status was formally terminated. Respondents did not explain the delay or why notice and a hearing could not have been provided, and the court found unpersuasive their argument that the gap was only a little over two years. The court did not reach the Deferred Enforced Departure arguments because admission on a nonimmigrant visa was determinative, and it did not address other claims, granting relief on the due process count alone.
The court granted both the TRO motion and the petition. Within five days, respondents must restore Swing to the status quo immediately preceding his August 2026 detention, including removal of the ankle monitor and monitoring requirements, return his documents and possessions such as his passport and work permit, and facilitate return of the posted bond. They must file a notice of compliance within ten days. Respondents are permanently enjoined from re-arresting him unless they first give at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing at which a neutral decisionmaker considers whether he is a danger to the community or flight risk requiring physical custody. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated GPS ankle monitoring and ISAP reporting as ongoing custody under section 2241(c)(3), so release on an administratively final bond order did not moot the petition.
- A visa-admitted noncitizen detained long after lawful status ended has, in this court's view, a vested liberty interest requiring notice and a pre-deprivation hearing.
- Respondents' failure to explain a delay of nearly four years, or more than two years after formal termination of status, and their failure to explain why notice could not be given, supported the due process ruling.
- The remedy was restoration of the status quo ante, including removal of the monitor, return of documents, and facilitation of return of the bond, plus a permanent bar on re-arrest absent seven days' notice and a hearing.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, so it is not binding precedent. It applies the same court's recent Oliveira Tinoco reasoning to a case where the bond order was administratively final, and it joins other district court decisions treating ISAP monitoring as habeas custody. It indicates that mootness arguments based on release may fail while supervision restraints continue.
The order rests on the court's own line of decisions and does not resolve the Deferred Enforced Departure arguments or the petition's other counts. The opinion does not indicate any appeal. Its practical reach lies in the remedy: full restoration of pre-detention liberty and a prospective bar on re-detention without notice and a hearing.