Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Williams Alvarado Castro, a citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States in September 2023 and was paroled from immigration detention that same month. He complied with all check-ins, hearings, and appointments required by his supervision, filed a pending asylum application, obtained a work permit, and maintained employment. His only criminal history was a 2025 DUI conviction, after which he was allowed to remain at liberty under immigration supervision. On September 30, 2026, ICE re-detained him when he appeared for a scheduled asylum interview, and an immigration judge subsequently advised him that no bond hearing could be held.
Castro filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on October 7, 2026. Respondents failed to file any timely answer. The court observed that this failure 'may not have been accidental,' reporting that at a September 8, 2026 meeting of the court's magistrate judges, the Chief Magistrate Judge stated that the United States Attorney's Office had decided it would file nothing in response to some immigration-related habeas petitions, notwithstanding the court's general order directing respondents to show cause why the writ should not be granted.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick first clarified that habeas relief may not issue merely as a consequence of a respondent's default; the petitioner bears the burden of proving custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The court confirmed it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the detention challenge, distinguishing review of a final removal order, which would be barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), from challenges to ICE detention, citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, Zadvydas v. Davis, and numerous district court decisions.
On the merits, the court held that a noncitizen alien previously released on parole possesses a protected liberty interest in remaining undetained, and that Castro's September 30, 2026 detention without prior notice or a prompt opportunity to be heard violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Mathews v. Eldridge framework. The court added in a footnote that even if the process due were limited to a prompt post-detention bond hearing, Castro had been denied that as well. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy was immediate release subject to reasonable conditions, while noting that Castro had failed to justify any different or additional form of habeas relief.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen alien paroled from immigration detention has a protected liberty interest in remaining free, and re-detention without prior notice or a prompt hearing violates procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
- Habeas relief cannot be granted by default even when the government fails to respond; the petitioner must still prove custody is unlawful, though the court here found that burden met on the merits.
- The court reported that the U.S. Attorney's Office had adopted a practice of filing nothing in response to some immigration habeas petitions despite a general order directing respondents to show cause.
- District courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to ICE detention even though 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) bars review of final removal orders.
- The operative relief was an order for entry of judgment granting the petition in part and directing immediate release subject to reasonable conditions, with the court declining to award any different or additional relief the petitioner had not justified.
Why It Matters
This order adds to a growing body of district court decisions holding that ICE's practice of re-detaining paroled noncitizens — particularly those with pending asylum applications and no final removal orders — without notice or a bond hearing violates due process. It is notable for the court's candid disclosure that the U.S. Attorney's Office had decided not to respond to some immigration habeas petitions at all, and for its insistence that relief must rest on the merits rather than on the government's default.
The decision reinforces that immediate release, subject to reasonable conditions, is the standard remedy for unlawful re-detention of paroled noncitizens, and it underscores the availability of habeas corpus as a check on immigration detention practices in the Central District of California.