Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
William Alejandro Zambrano-Lizardi, a native and citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States on or about June 20, 2022, and was placed in removal proceedings for being present without admission or parole. He was released the same day under the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program and later received Temporary Protected Status, which immigration authorities terminated on April 2, 2025. He has no criminal history and is not subject to an administratively final order of removal.
On August 27, 2026, ICE arrested Zambrano-Lizardi when he reported for a pre-scheduled immigration check-in. The government claimed he violated the ATD program by traveling outside Georgia without permission, but submitted no evidence documenting any violation and gave him no notice or opportunity to contest it at arrest. He checked a box on the Notice of Custody Determination requesting a bond hearing before an immigration judge but refused to sign the form; no bond hearing has been scheduled, and his next immigration court hearing is set for November 27, 2026.
Zambrano-Lizardi filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that his re-detention after years at liberty violated procedural due process. The government answered that he could move the immigration court for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In a traverse, he disputed any ATD violation, and his verified petition described an August 7, 2026 same-day trip to South Carolina to visit his seven-year-old son, during which he checked in with ICE and returned to Georgia as instructed. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that although both parties agreed the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge, that did not resolve the case because he challenged re-detention by ICE without any pre-deprivation hearing. Consistent with substantively identical Eastern District of California decisions, the undersigned found that his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process was violated by re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing.
On remedy, the court acknowledged that post-deprivation remedies may suffice where particularized flight risks urgently require arrest, but the petitioner's unrebutted account of innocent travel gave no basis to find a flight risk, especially since he voluntarily appeared before ICE as instructed when detained. The court therefore ordered that his emergency motion for expedited consideration was granted and recommended granting the § 2241 application.
The recommendations further direct that the respondent immediately release Zambrano-Lizardi and return his documents and possessions; that the Clerk serve the Central Valley Annex with any release order; that any re-detention require at least seven days' notice and a bond hearing at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger; that any final order not address detention following an executable final order of removal; and that the Clerk enter judgment for the petitioner and close the case. The findings were submitted to the assigned district judge with a shortened three-day objection period.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended granting a § 2241 habeas petition and ordering the immediate release of an immigration detainee re-arrested at a scheduled ICE check-in without pre-deprivation notice or hearing.
- The court found a Fifth Amendment procedural due process violation even though a post-deprivation bond hearing before an immigration judge remained available under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- The government submitted no evidence of the alleged ATD violation, leaving the petitioner's verified account of an innocent same-day trip to visit his son as the only evidence.
- The recommendation distinguished flight-risk cases where post-deprivation remedies sufficed, noting this petitioner voluntarily appeared as instructed.
- The magistrate judge set a shortened three-day objection period, citing the urgency of the release relief and the parties' completed briefing.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to a line of Eastern District of California habeas rulings holding that ICE's re-detention of noncitizens living at liberty, without pre-deprivation notice or a hearing, violates procedural due process even where a statutory bond hearing remains available, and that undocumented allegations of supervision violations cannot justify such arrests.
The recommended conditions on any re-detention—seven days' notice and a bond hearing with a clear-and-convincing burden on the government—show the procedural protections district courts are fashioning, while expressly leaving open detention following an executable final order of removal.