Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Evelin Dayana Andino entered the United States at age fourteen, held Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status from 2013 to 2019, and became a lawful permanent resident in 2019. After pleading guilty to a controlled-substance offense, she received a two-year prison sentence and ten years of probation. She served roughly four months in Ventura County Jail and was released in April 2025 with an ankle monitor and placed on house arrest. ICE arrested her on November 14, 2025, when she reported to the probation office to have the monitor removed, and she remained detained for more than eleven months.
A Notice to Appear charged Andino as deportable based on an aggravated-felony conviction. She applied for asylum and withholding of removal, was transferred between facilities, and had her case assigned to three immigration judges. An immigration judge ordered her removed on June 3, 2026, and her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending. The parties agreed that she was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which mandates detention during removal proceedings, while the government maintained that her detention was lawful.
Andino alleged that conditions at the California City Detention Facility included lengthy cell confinement, limited outdoor recreation, mold, unsanitary conditions, inadequate food and hygiene supplies, and cold temperatures. She also alleged that staff declined to arrange an ultrasound for a painful, growing abdominal mass and failed to treat other medical problems. Her amended petition asserted procedural and substantive due process claims and sought release; she separately moved for a preliminary injunction. After the court identified apparent sufficient evidence of a substantive due process violation and offered an evidentiary hearing, the respondents elected to submit on the papers.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted habeas relief solely on the substantive due process claim and did not decide whether detention without a bond hearing violated procedural due process. Although Demore v. Kim rejected a facial challenge to § 1226(c), the court explained that as-applied challenges remain available. Assuming the applicability of a five-factor test used by courts in the Ninth Circuit, it considered detention length, government-caused delay, flight risk and dangerousness, less restrictive alternatives, and conditions of confinement. The central question was whether detention had become punitive rather than regulatory, or excessive in relation to preventing flight and protecting public safety.
The length factor favored the government because eleven months had not exceeded periods previously upheld by the Ninth Circuit. The remaining considerations favored Andino. The government did not dispute that transfers and repeated judicial reassignments contributed to a seven-month period before the removal order. Her compliance with house arrest, clean record between state release and ICE arrest, and family responsibilities supported findings that she was unlikely to endanger the community or flee. ICE check-ins and electronic monitoring could mitigate any remaining risk.
Conditions and medical treatment were decisive in the overall assessment. The court found that Andino had been refused care for the abdominal mass and a knee injury, and that the alleged cold, unsanitary conditions, inadequate food, and restricted outdoor access were corroborated by outside reports and other judicial findings. Comparing those circumstances with her substantially better treatment in Ventura County Jail, the court concluded that the conditions were excessive for any nonpunitive purpose. On balance, nearly a year in conditions worse than state custody, combined with weak flight and safety concerns and available alternatives, made the detention excessive in relation to its regulatory purpose.
Key Takeaways
- A facially valid mandatory-detention statute does not prevent an as-applied substantive due process challenge to the manner and justification for a particular detention.
- The court did not treat eleven months of detention as independently unconstitutional, but evaluated duration together with conditions, delay, regulatory purposes, and alternatives.
- Undisputed evidence of compliance with house arrest, family ties, and a clean post-release record supported the court's flight-risk and dangerousness analysis.
- The court relied on the disparity between civil immigration detention and Andino's prior criminal confinement, including the refusal of diagnostic and other medical care.
- The amended habeas petition was granted only as to substantive due process, leaving the procedural due process claim unaddressed.
Why It Matters
The order required respondents to release Andino within seven days, while permitting additional release conditions to protect public safety and mitigate flight risk. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Andino and close the case, resolved all pending motions, and treated the preliminary-injunction motion as moot. The decision therefore ordered release without eliminating the government's ability to use supervision alternatives.
The ruling illustrates how detention conditions and unanswered medical needs can alter an as-applied due process analysis even when detention length alone favors the government. It also shows the importance of an uncontested record after the government declined an evidentiary hearing, while avoiding a broader ruling on mandatory detention or the unresolved procedural due process theory.