Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marvin Pantalion Carrillo de Leon, a Guatemalan national who entered the United States in 2006, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in August 2026 after release on personal recognizance for a pending Oklahoma DUI charge. ICE detained him without an individualized bond hearing and placed him in removal proceedings as a person present without admission or parole. He sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Fifth Amendment.
Carrillo de Leon had not checked the box requesting an immigration-judge hearing on his custody form. The government therefore argued that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that his petition was moot. He responded that detention had deprived his household of its main income, causing hardship to his wife and two minor children, and sought release or a hearing with enhanced protections.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan recommended waiving prudential exhaustion and granting the petition on the due-process count. Under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, a person apprehended in the interior without prior admission is detained under discretionary § 1226(a), not mandatory § 1225(b)(2)(A), and may seek custody redetermination before an immigration judge. Because Carrillo de Leon had received no such hearing, the recommendation concluded that he was entitled to one.
The magistrate judge also found an ordinary regulatory hearing inadequate for the asserted constitutional injury. Although Ninth Circuit law generally permits placing the burden on a detainee at a § 1226(a) hearing, individualized circumstances can justify added safeguards. The loss of Carrillo de Leon’s principal household income and resulting family hardship supported requiring the government to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. Because that protection would not be available through the generic process, exhaustion was excused.
The proposed order would require a hearing within 14 days after any final district-court order, with at least seven days’ advance notice to Carrillo de Leon and counsel. Respondent would certify compliance within seven days after the hearing and return his documents and possessions if bond were granted. The recommendation would enter judgment for Carrillo de Leon and close the case. It did not itself grant release or finally order the hearing; objections were due within three days, and the assigned district judge still had to adopt or reject it.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendation treats exhaustion as prudential, not jurisdictional.
- Futility existed because the requested enhanced safeguards were unavailable in a generic bond proceeding.
- Family financial hardship supplied the individualized reason for shifting the burden to the government.
- The proposed clear-and-convincing standard concerns continued detention, not the merits of removal.
- The document is findings and recommendations, not a final operative order.
Why It Matters
The decision shows why counsel should develop facts about detention’s concrete effects rather than rely only on a general liberty interest. Employment loss, dependent care, and household finances may support procedures beyond the ordinary regulatory hearing. It also offers a response to exhaustion arguments when the administrative process cannot supply the particular constitutional safeguard requested.
Practitioners must track the posture precisely. The 14-day clock would begin only upon issuance of a final order, and the immigration judge—not the magistrate judge—would decide whether release was warranted after applying the specified burden.