Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Enas J. Al Zubi filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 23, 2026, naming the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Los Angeles ICE field office director, and the Adelanto facility administrator. She also sought a temporary restraining order requiring immediate release. The court converted that request into a preliminary-injunction application because the governing standards are the same, then resolved the petition and application on the briefing without oral argument.
According to the petition, Al Zubi entered the United States on a B-1/B-2 visa in February 2014, later changed to F-1 student status, and was listed as a derivative beneficiary on her husband’s January 2016 asylum application. She is separated from her husband, cares for four United States citizen children, holds employment authorization valid through 2030, works with children with special needs, and has no criminal history. ICE detained her on October 21, 2026, while she was attempting to travel to Washington, D.C., to renew her passport at the Jordanian Embassy; she alleged that the arrest was warrantless.
Her petition asserted Fifth Amendment due process, Immigration and Nationality Act, Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure, and Administrative Procedure Act claims, with release requested for each. The government answered only the detention issue under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), conceding entitlement to a bond hearing under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock while opposing immediate release because this was her first detention for a visa overstay.
The Court’s Holding
The court treated the government’s silence on the remaining claims as a concession. It had previously warned that failing to address an argument could be treated as conceding both its merits and entitlement to relief. Relying on decisions granting habeas relief after similarly incomplete government responses, the court applied that warning to the unanswered due process, unreasonable-seizure, and APA claims rather than supplying arguments the response omitted.
The court also rejected the government’s specific opposition to release. It cited decisions recognizing that a noncitizen admitted on a visa who is not detained within a reasonable time after lawful status expires can develop a vested liberty interest requiring adequate notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter, with bond considered. The government noted that Al Zubi’s F-1 status was terminated on September 10, 2015, but the court found its first-detention argument unpersuasive in light of that authority and the interests described in the cited cases.
The November 6, 2026 order granted the habeas petition and denied the temporary-restraining-order application as moot. It required Al Zubi’s forthwith release with her personal effects and identification and immigration documents, barred new release conditions unless deemed necessary at a future pre-deprivation bond hearing, required a copy of the order at or near release, and required a compliance notice within three calendar days. It further prohibited re-detention absent at least seven days’ individualized notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing where the government bears the stated burdens concerning flight risk, danger, and conditions. If she is detained again in the district, transfer or removal from the district is barred unless executing a final removal order. Judgment was to be entered accordingly.
Key Takeaways
- An immigration response that addresses only bond while leaving other habeas claims unanswered may be treated as conceding those claims when the court has expressly warned of that consequence.
- The court found the government’s first-detention rationale insufficient against authority recognizing a vested liberty interest after prolonged presence following expiration of visa status.
- Immediate release was ordered with personal documents and without newly imposed monitoring or other conditions, subject to conditions deemed necessary at a future pre-deprivation bond hearing.
- Any re-detention requires at least seven days’ individualized notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with the government carrying the specified burdens.
- The order separately required a compliance filing within three calendar days and restricted transfer or removal from the district following any renewed detention there, except to execute a final removal order.
Why It Matters
The decision combines a procedural concession ruling with substantive reliance on emerging district-court authority concerning delayed detention after visa status expires. It did not merely schedule the bond hearing the government conceded; it ordered release and defined procedural protections against renewed detention.
The order also preserves a meaningful distinction between release now and future custody decisions. A later pre-deprivation bond hearing may justify necessary conditions, but the government must provide individualized notice and prove flight risk or danger, as well as the inadequacy of conditions, under the terms stated by the court.