Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Brayan Ariel Ramirez Baten, a noncitizen who entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor and was released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement in August 2021, was re-detained by ICE at his workplace in January 2026. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his re-detention without a hearing, arguing it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and his Fifth Amendment due process rights. On April 2, 2026, the district court granted a preliminary injunction ordering his release and a bond hearing, finding his detention violated due process. Respondents opposed the petition, arguing Baten was an "applicant for admission" subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), but conceded the case presented no factual or legal distinctions from prior district court orders rejecting that argument. The district court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Kellison for findings and recommendations on the merits.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the habeas petition on both statutory and due process grounds. Relying on the intervening Ninth Circuit decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), the Court held that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). Because Baten entered as an unaccompanied minor and was apprehended in the interior, he was not an "applicant for admission" subject to § 1225(b)(2). Consequently, his prolonged detention without a bond hearing before an immigration judge—where the government bears the burden of proving flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence—violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Court recommends a permanent injunction barring re-detention absent such a hearing.
The recommendation left room for detention under authorities not presented in the case, including mandatory detention under § 1226(c) or post-removal detention under § 1231. It also set a shortened seven-day objection period, with responses due seven days after objections, reflecting the liberty interest and requested release.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who entered without inspection and are apprehended in the interior are subject to § 1226 detention authority, not the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2), per Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
- Prolonged detention under § 1226 without a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- The government conceded the case was materially indistinguishable from prior district court rulings rejecting the "applicant for admission" argument for interior apprehensions.
- The recommended permanent injunction requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker with counsel permitted, and applies only to detention under the authority at issue in this case (not § 1226(c) or § 1231).
- The petitioner was released on April 3, 2026, pursuant to the district court's preliminary injunction.
Why It Matters
This decision applies the Ninth Circuit's binding precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez to bar the government from classifying interior-apprehended noncitizens as "applicants for admission" subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing under § 1225(b)(2). It reinforces that due process requires a meaningful bond hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof for prolonged civil immigration detention under § 1226. The recommended permanent injunction provides ongoing protection against re-detention without constitutional process, though it carves out other statutory detention authorities. The findings are submitted to the district judge for adoption, with objections due within seven days.