Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sisters Zilian Pang and Zijuan Pang entered the United States lawfully on tourist visas in 2016, lived in Fresno, regularly attended immigration court, and had pending asylum applications. ICE officers detained them in April 2026 without first presenting an administrative arrest warrant or giving an explanation. The warrants in the record were dated the following day.
The sisters received later bond proceedings, but remained detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. Their habeas petition challenged the initial arrests and the continued custody, arguing that federal immigration law and Fifth Amendment due process did not permit their detention in this manner.
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that the arrests violated the statutory framework. Because the sisters had been admitted into the country, section 1226(a) governed and ordinarily authorized arrest on an administrative warrant. The narrow authority for a warrantless arrest requires reason to believe the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The record contained no evidence of likely escape, particularly given the sisters’ longstanding residence and regular court appearances.
Later bond hearings did not cure the original unlawful deprivation of liberty because those proceedings assessed whether continued detention was warranted, not whether the government lawfully seized the sisters in the first place. The court ordered release within specified deadlines, return of their property, and no ankle monitors or alternative-to-detention program. It barred re-detention unless the government first proves flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence before a neutral decisionmaker.
Key Takeaways
- For noncitizens governed by section 1226(a), an administrative warrant is the ordinary prerequisite to arrest.
- The warrantless-arrest exception requires evidence that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
- A later bond hearing does not retroactively remedy an unlawful initial seizure.
- Where the constitutional injury is the completed deprivation of liberty without required pre-deprivation process, release may be the necessary habeas remedy.
Why It Matters
The ruling distinguishes the legality of an ICE arrest from the separate question whether a detainee should later receive bond. That distinction matters for longtime residents who are already participating in removal proceedings and whose conduct provides no concrete reason to expect flight before the government can obtain a warrant.
Immigration counsel should promptly seek the arrest warrant, service records, and evidence offered to justify any claimed escape risk. The remedy also signals that post-arrest process may be inadequate when the governing law required authorization before custody began.