Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Luis Pablo Gonzalez Avendano, a citizen of Mexico, presented himself at the San Ysidro port of entry on November 7, 2022, seeking asylum. After inspection, DHS served him with a Notice to Appear (NTA) designating him as an "arriving alien," scheduled a removal hearing for March 9, 2023, and released him. Petitioner complied with all requirements: he appeared in immigration court, filed applications for asylum and withholding of removal in October 2023, obtained employment authorization, worked in construction, paid federal income taxes, and kept the government informed of his address and contact information. He lived openly in the United States for nearly four years. On September 2, 2026, immigration agents pursued Petitioner in a vehicle, stopped him, and detained him at the Desert View Facility in Adelanto, California. Petitioner alleges he received no warrant, notice, or hearing before the arrest, and no custody determination after it. He filed a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the re-detention as a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Respondents did not appear or respond by the deadline.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition in part and ordered Petitioner's immediate release on the conditions of his prior release. The Court held that Petitioner, having been released from immigration custody and having complied with all conditions of release for nearly four years, acquired a protected liberty interest in his continued release under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as established in Morrissey v. Brewer. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the Court found all three factors favored Petitioner: his private interest in freedom from confinement after nearly four years of compliant liberty was substantial; the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because he received no procedures whatsoever—no notice, no hearing, no warrant, and no post-arrest custody determination; and the government asserted no countervailing interest such as danger, flight risk, violation of release conditions, or changed circumstances. The Court denied all other requests for relief, including injunctive and declaratory relief and the statutory claim, as the release order afforded complete relief. The Court expressed no view on any future re-detention on a different record.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen released from immigration custody who remains at liberty and complies with release conditions for a significant period acquires a protected liberty interest in continued release under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- Re-detention after nearly four years of compliant liberty without any process—no notice, no hearing, no warrant, and no post-deprivation custody determination—violates procedural due process.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test weighs heavily in favor of the detainee when the private interest is substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation is high due to a complete absence of process, and the government asserts no legitimate interest justifying the deprivation.
- Where the government fails to appear or respond, the court treats the petition's well-pleaded allegations as uncontested and reaches the merits, though default alone does not entitle the petitioner to relief.
- The court ordered immediate release restoring the status quo ante (the conditions of the prior release) and required a compliance status report within five days.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that noncitizens released pending removal proceedings who build equities and comply with conditions over an extended period acquire a constitutionally protected liberty interest that cannot be terminated without due process. The ruling applies the Mathews v. Eldridge framework to immigration re-detention, emphasizing that a complete absence of process—pre- or post-deprivation—combined with a total lack of government justification renders the detention unconstitutional. The case is notable for granting habeas relief on due process grounds without reaching statutory claims, and for ordering immediate release on prior conditions rather than a bond hearing, where the government offered no justification for the re-detention. The decision leaves open the question of whether the government could re-detain the petitioner in the future on a different record with proper procedures.