Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ufuk U., a noncitizen who entered the United States without admission in November 2023 while seeking asylum, challenged his civil immigration detention through a pro se habeas petition. The court recounted that the Department of Homeland Security initially detained him, began removal proceedings, and then released him on recognizance. During nearly three years in the community, he worked, paid taxes, obtained employment authorization in 2025, became engaged to a U.S. citizen, and acquired no criminal history.
ICE arrested him at a gas station on September 23, 2026, without notice or a hearing. Respondent Christopher Chestnut, the warden, held him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The answer acknowledged that an initial custody-determination form had been filed with the immigration court in an attempt to trigger a bond hearing and stated no objection to a court-ordered hearing. Nevertheless, Ufuk U. had spent a month in custody without any custody hearing. The court exercised habeas jurisdiction over the legality of that immigration detention.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley first found a protected liberty interest. Freedom from imprisonment lies at the core of due-process liberty, and the petitioner’s years in the community, authorized work, family connection, and release on recognizance reinforced that interest. The government did not claim that he had violated any release condition. The court explained that even a removable noncitizen whose liberty may be revoked retains constitutional protection.
Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found a substantial private interest, a considerable risk of erroneous deprivation, and a negligible governmental interest in detention without a hearing. The earlier release necessarily reflected a determination that he was neither dangerous nor a flight risk, and Respondent offered no contrary finding, changed circumstances, or contention that he presented either risk. Detention had also separated him from his fiancée and prevented him from working.
The court further held that Respondent failed to provide safeguards owed under § 1226(a) and its regulations. Although Respondent conceded entitlement to a custody hearing, none had been held or scheduled. Routine custody hearings imposed minimal burden, and Respondent did not claim undue hardship. Because there was neither pre-deprivation process nor a timely post-deprivation hearing, the court concluded that Ufuk U. was detained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and had been denied an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the habeas petition and ordered Respondent to release Ufuk U. immediately on an order of release on recognizance, returning all of his documents and possessions at the time of release.
- Respondent must file a notice of compliance within two court days of the order.
- The order bars re-arrest or re-detention under § 1226(a) without statutory and constitutional safeguards, including at least seven days’ notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder where the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that its interest outweighs the petitioner’s protected interest such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk.
- At such a hearing, the government must satisfy a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard concerning public safety or appearance at proceedings, consider alternatives to detention, and allow counsel to be present.
- The pending original and amended temporary-restraining-order motions were denied as moot, and the Clerk was directed to serve the detention center, enter judgment for the petitioner, and close the case.
Why It Matters
The decision applies procedural due process to the re-detention of a noncitizen who had lived in the community for years after release on recognizance. It treats the absence of any custody hearing during a month of detention, combined with the government’s lack of a danger or flight-risk showing, as constitutionally decisive rather than excused by the pendency of removal proceedings.
The relief extends beyond immediate release. It specifies notice, hearing, evidence, neutral-decisionmaker, alternatives-to-detention, and counsel requirements for future § 1226(a) detention. It also separately requires at least seven days’ notice of an intent to execute a final and executable removal order and detain him, counted from when that order becomes final and executable. The opinion does not adjudicate the underlying removal case or asylum application.