Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Volodymyr Turchyn, a citizen of Ukraine, entered the United States on a visitor visa on May 25, 2024, and remained after the visa expired. He applied for asylum in July 2024, received employment authorization, and spent the next two years working and living at an address known to immigration authorities while his asylum application remained pending. He has no criminal convictions.
On September 18, 2026, ICE agents arrested and detained Turchyn without prior notice, without a warrant, and without any prior or contemporaneous opportunity to be heard. After 20 days in detention, he received a bond hearing before an immigration judge, who denied bond as a flight risk. Turchyn filed a habeas petition on October 18, 2026; respondents responded and he replied on October 26, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
United States Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick held that Turchyn's arrest and detention violated federal statute, federal regulation, and constitutional due process. Federal law prohibits a warrantless arrest of a noncitizen unless the officer has reason to believe the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, and the record showed no warrant and no such reason. The court stressed that ICE must follow federal statutes, regulations, and its own procedures.
The court further held that Turchyn had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining undetained because immigration authorities had elected not to detain him for two years while he built a substantial life in the United States. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court concluded that arrest and detention without notice or a meaningful hearing violated due process, and the bond hearing held only after 20 days did not cure the violation. The court also rejected the exhaustion defense, treating exhaustion as prudential rather than jurisdictional and recognizing an exception for constitutional challenges to immigration procedures.
The magistrate judge ordered that judgment be entered granting the petition in part: (a) directing respondents to release Turchyn from detention immediately subject to reasonable conditions; (b) declaring that his detention violated his due-process rights; and (c) enjoining respondents from any further detention absent at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is an unacceptable danger or flight risk.
Key Takeaways
- Federal statute and regulation prohibit warrantless arrests of noncitizens absent a reason to believe the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, and ICE must follow its own procedures.
- A noncitizen whom immigration authorities previously chose not to detain, and who has built a substantial life in the United States, possesses a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining at liberty.
- A belated bond hearing held 20 days after arrest does not cure a detention that violated due process at its inception.
- The exhaustion requirement in this immigration-detention habeas posture is prudential, not jurisdictional, and does not bar constitutional challenges to immigration procedures.
- The ordered remedy includes immediate release on reasonable conditions plus an injunction requiring notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before any re-detention.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to a growing body of Central District of California and Ninth Circuit authority holding that ICE's warrantless arrests and prolonged detention without prompt hearings can violate federal law and the Constitution. The court equated the liberty interest of a noncitizen previously released from detention with that of a noncitizen whom authorities previously chose not to detain, rejecting the government's contrary position as unsupported by legal authority.
The prospective relief—seven days' notice, a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, and a clear-and-convincing burden on the government—reflects an emerging pattern of procedural protections imposed in immigration habeas cases to prevent unlawful re-detention.