Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Eduardo Riofrio Castillo entered the United States near Yuma, Arizona in December 2022. Border Patrol agents encountered him, released him, and directed him to report to ICE at a later date, which the government says he failed to do. He applied for asylum and lived with family in New Jersey, whom he financially supported.
In November 2025, New Jersey authorities arrested Riofrio Castillo on charges including aggravated assault under a state statute that can be satisfied by merely attempting to cause serious bodily injury, without any actual injury occurring. That charge remained pending and unresolved. Upon his release from state custody, ICE took him into custody, and by the time of this decision he had been detained for over ten months without ever receiving a bond hearing. The government maintained that his detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c)(1)(E), a provision Congress added in January 2025 to expand mandatory detention to noncitizens with certain qualifying arrests or convictions. Riofrio Castillo filed a habeas petition arguing that provision did not apply to him and that his prolonged detention without any hearing violated due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition in part. It first held that section 1226(c)(1)(E) — which applies only where a noncitizen is charged with or arrested for conduct constituting the elements of a crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person — did not cover Riofrio Castillo’s case. New Jersey’s aggravated assault statute can be violated by a mere attempt to cause serious bodily injury, with no actual injury required, and the government offered no evidence, such as a police report or criminal complaint, that any injury had actually occurred. Because the charged conduct did not necessarily satisfy the statute’s injury requirement, mandatory detention under the new provision did not apply.
Turning to due process, the court held that because Riofrio Castillo had previously been paroled into the country and lived at liberty for roughly three years before his arrest, he retained a protected liberty interest in continued freedom. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found his private interest substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation high given he had received no custody hearing at all, and the government’s interest in withholding a hearing low given how routine such hearings are. Unlike in companion cases ordering outright release, the court found a pre-deprivation hearing unnecessary here because the pending aggravated assault arrest at least raised a legitimate question about changed circumstances. Instead, it ordered respondents to provide a substantive bond hearing within fourteen days, with the government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Riofrio Castillo poses a danger to the community or a flight risk.
Key Takeaways
- The 2025 expansion of mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c)(1)(E) applies only to arrests or charges for crimes whose elements require actual death or serious bodily injury — an attempt-only statute is not enough on its own.
- The government must produce actual evidence, such as a police report, warrant, or criminal complaint, that serious bodily injury resulted; a bare charge citing an attempt-based statute will not suffice to trigger mandatory detention.
- Noncitizens previously paroled or released and living at liberty for an extended period retain a due process liberty interest even after a later arrest.
- Where a later arrest plausibly suggests changed circumstances, courts may order a prompt post-deprivation bond hearing rather than requiring immediate release or a hearing before detention begins.
- This decision joins a growing line of Eastern District of California rulings applying the Mathews v. Eldridge framework to detention disputes arising under the January 2025 mandatory-detention expansion.
Why It Matters
With Congress having broadened mandatory immigration detention in January 2025, this decision gives practitioners a concrete, citable analysis of how far that expansion actually reaches. It does not automatically sweep in every arrest involving an assault-type charge, only those where the charged conduct necessarily requires proof of death or serious injury.
For California immigration defense attorneys, the case is a useful tool for contesting DHS’s reliance on broadly worded state assault statutes to justify no-bond detention, and it confirms that even where mandatory detention does not apply, a long-released noncitizen facing a fresh arrest is entitled to a prompt government-burden bond hearing rather than indefinite detention without any hearing at all.