Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ana Glenda Melendez Alvarado is a native of El Salvador who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on October 9, 2008, and lived freely in the country for seventeen years. On November 18, 2025, she pled guilty to child abuse under circumstances likely to cause great bodily injury under California Penal Code § 273A(a) and was sentenced to two years in state prison. On September 25, 2026, ICE officers interviewed Petitioner at her place of incarceration, the California Institution for Women State Prison in Corona, and concluded she was removable. CDCR then released Petitioner into ICE custody. ICE served her with a Notice to Appear alleging removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i) based on the child abuse conviction. As of the date of the order, the Executive Office for Immigration Review's Automated Case Information service indicates Petitioner is scheduled for a master hearing on December 3, 2026.
Petitioner filed a habeas petition on October 7, 2026, alleging her detention violated her procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and was capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. She requested immediate release. Respondents filed their opposition on October 16, 2026, arguing the petition did not allege a sufficient basis for release given her criminal history, but stated they were not presenting an opposition argument with respect to providing Petitioner a bond hearing. Petitioner did not file a reply.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected Petitioner's procedural due process claim, distinguishing prior cases in which immigration authorities had re-detained noncitizens after previously releasing them based on a determination that detention was not necessary, or had permitted noncitizens to remain at liberty for years despite knowing of their presence. Here, there was no indication that immigration authorities had previously determined Petitioner was not a danger or flight risk or otherwise permitted her to remain at liberty after she became subject to removal. To the contrary, DHS took Petitioner into custody immediately following her release on parole from state custody. The court therefore found that Petitioner's detention without a pre-deprivation hearing did not violate due process or the APA, and that she had not otherwise shown she was entitled to release.
However, the court found that Petitioner remained subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the default detention statute for noncitizens in removal proceedings, and that federal regulations provide that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention. Because it did not appear that Petitioner had been afforded a bond hearing, and because Respondents did not oppose providing one, the court concluded Petitioner should be provided a bond hearing under § 1226(a) to determine whether her detention is justified. The court ordered that judgment be entered granting the petition in part, that a writ of habeas corpus be issued requiring Petitioner's release unless she is afforded a bond hearing within seven days, and that Respondents file a status report within ten calendar days confirming compliance.
Key Takeaways
- The court distinguished this case from prior rulings where due process violations were found because immigration authorities had previously released the noncitizen or allowed them to remain at liberty for years before re-detaining them.
- Because DHS took Petitioner into custody immediately following her release on parole from state custody, the court found no due process violation from the lack of a pre-deprivation hearing.
- The court ordered that Petitioner receive a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days, noting that Respondents did not oppose providing one.
- Petitioner's request for immediate release was denied, but the writ of habeas corpus was issued requiring her release unless a bond hearing is provided within the seven-day deadline.
- The court noted that nothing in its order precludes Petitioner from seeking a continuance to prepare for the bond hearing or for any other legitimate reason.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the distinction courts draw between noncitizens who are re-detained after a prior release or a long period of liberty—which can raise due process concerns—and those taken into immigration custody immediately upon release from criminal custody. The ruling confirms that immediate detention following parole does not, without more, violate procedural due process.
At the same time, the order reinforces that noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) are entitled to bond hearings at the outset of detention under federal regulations, and that courts will order such hearings on habeas review when they have not been provided, particularly where the government does not oppose the relief.