Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hovhannes Beorkyubeyukyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, was arrested near San Ysidro, California, on July 6, 2023, served with a Notice to Appear, and released by Border Patrol the same day. According to the petition, he then lived in the community for nearly three years while his asylum and humanitarian-relief applications and removal proceedings remained pending, developing community ties and household responsibilities. The court described the nearly three-year period of release as undisputed.
In April 2026 he was arrested in Burbank on suspicion of grand theft from a person and a domestic-violence-related offense. On May 8, 2026, the Burbank City Attorney's Office confirmed it had rejected the case and would not pursue charges. Petitioner asserts he has no criminal convictions. Respondents state that on July 1, 2026, ICE officers arrested him at his last known residence on an immigration warrant; Petitioner alleges he received no meaningful notice, individualized custody determination, or chance to contest detention beforehand. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 6, 2026. Respondents argued he appeared subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) as amended by the Laken Riley Act, or alternatively was detainable under § 1226(a). They conceded he has a constitutional right to be heard and asked the court to deny the petition or order a bond hearing within seven days. The parties consented to a magistrate judge, and the matter was fully briefed.
The Court’s Holding
The court found jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) did not bar review. On the statute, it concluded Respondents had not shown that § 1226(c)(1)(E) applies. Because the provision covers a person who "is charged with" or "is arrested for" a listed offense, the court read the present tense as not reaching an arrest that produced no pending charge. The prosecutor's decision not to file charges was evidence contrary to the government's account, which the court said is presumed reliable only absent contrary evidence, and Respondents did not address it. The court therefore analyzed detention under the discretionary framework of § 1226(a).
On due process, the court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge factors. Release in 2023 created a substantial liberty interest in remaining free, even if the release was conditional. The risk of erroneous deprivation was high because Respondents gave no pre-deprivation process and identified no materially changed circumstances since release, which Matter of Sugay and Saravia v. Sessions require. The government's interest in skipping a hearing was exceptionally weak, because custody hearings are routine and Respondents identified no individualized risk or administrative obstacle. Re-detention on July 1, 2026, without adequate pre-deprivation process therefore violated due process.
The court ordered judgment for Petitioner and a writ requiring immediate release, restoration of the conditions in place before July 1, 2026, and return of his belongings, including identification and work permits. It also barred re-detention absent pre-deprivation notice and a constitutionally adequate hearing at which the government must justify confinement. The parties must file a joint status report within seven days confirming release, and Petitioner and the court must receive at least three days' notice before any removal from the jurisdiction. The court did not adopt Respondents' alternative request for a post-detention bond hearing.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1226(c)(1)(E)'s present-tense wording, "is charged with" or "is arrested for," was read not to reach a person whose earlier theft arrest produced no charges.
- A noncitizen released by immigration authorities and living in the community for years holds a protected liberty interest that the government cannot extinguish without adequate process.
- Under Mathews, the government's interest in re-detaining a compliant person without a hearing was weak, and its failure to identify changed circumstances heightened the risk of error.
- The remedy was release plus a bar on re-detention absent a pre-deprivation hearing at which the government must justify confinement, not merely a post-detention bond hearing.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's ruling on consent in a single habeas case, so it is not binding precedent. It joins other district decisions applying Mathews to the re-detention of previously released noncitizens, and it adds a reading of the Laken Riley Act's present-tense language where prosecutors rejected the charges.
Its reach is limited to this record. The court did not decide the merits of removal or asylum, and it did not hold that the government can never re-detain Petitioner; it requires notice and a hearing at which the government must justify confinement. Whether a future hearing could support detention, and how the statute applies where charges remain pending, are left open.