Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Candido Paxtor Chavez, a Guatemalan citizen, arrived at the border in 2021 at age 14 seeking asylum. The Office of Refugee Resettlement initially held him and then released him to his uncle. Immigration and Customs Enforcement rearrested him in October 2025 without explaining why his earlier release had been revoked or giving him an opportunity to contest the decision.
Paxtor Chavez filed a federal habeas petition seeking restoration of his prior release conditions. In the alternative, he requested a bond hearing under the Ninth Circuit’s 2026 Rodriguez Vazquez decision. The government did not oppose a bond hearing but did not respond to his request for immediate release.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Judge Cynthia Bashant granted the petition and ordered Paxtor Chavez released on the same terms that governed his release in 2021. The court first explained that Rodriguez Vazquez did not control because that case concerns noncitizens arrested in the interior, while Paxtor Chavez had originally been arrested at the border.
The decisive issue was instead procedural due process—the constitutional requirement that government use fair procedures before taking away a protected liberty interest. Once the government released Paxtor Chavez, he acquired a liberty interest in remaining free under those conditions. ICE could not revoke that liberty without notice, an opportunity to be heard, and evidence of materially changed circumstances such as new dangerousness, increased flight risk, or a final removal order.
Nothing before the court showed that circumstances had changed since the government’s original finding that release was appropriate. The court therefore required immediate restoration of the prior release rather than merely a future bond hearing. If ICE later believes relevant circumstances have changed, it must provide notice and a prompt opportunity to contest that assertion before an immigration judge.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen’s conditional release can create a constitutionally protected liberty interest, even when the initial release decision was discretionary.
- ICE may not rearrest a previously released person solely because removal proceedings remain pending.
- Revocation requires materially changed circumstances, such as evidence of danger, flight risk, or a final removal order.
- The person must receive notice of the asserted change and a prompt opportunity to challenge it before an immigration judge.
- Where the government supplies no evidence of changed circumstances, restoration of the prior release conditions may be the appropriate habeas remedy.
Why It Matters
This decision gives California immigration practitioners a due-process framework distinct from disputes over whether detention falls under § 1225 or § 1226. The government’s discretion at the beginning of custody does not necessarily permit unexplained rearrest years after it chose release.
For habeas petitions, counsel should document the original release decision and conditions, the absence of violations, what notice accompanied rearrest, and whether the government identified any genuinely new facts. Those details may determine whether a court orders a hearing or immediate release.