Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Javier Enrique Carullo Moralez, a Venezuelan citizen, entered the United States in October 2022 and was encountered by Customs and Border Protection. The Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear charging removability, then released him on his own recognizance under Alternatives to Detention. He reported applying for asylum and temporary protected status; the court also identified pending adjustment-of-status and relative petitions and approved employment authorization. He was not subject to a final removal order.
Local police arrested Carullo Moralez in Texas on August 8, 2026, on assault-family-member and unlawful-restraint charges. Both charges were dismissed on September 2, and the court noted no other criminal history. It appears local police contacted ICE, which arrived at Harris County Jail on August 8 to interview him. ICE then arrested him on or around September 4, presumably upon his release from jail, pursuant to an I-247A immigration detainer that ICE lodged with the Harris County Sheriff's Office, and he was transferred to the California City Detention Facility, where he remained. He filed a section 2241 habeas petition and temporary-restraining-order motion on September 23, alleging a Fifth Amendment due-process violation. Respondents opposed both requests, asserting lawful detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). After the court sought the parties' positions on further proceedings, respondents did not request a hearing or oppose decision on the existing record. The court issued its order dated October 16, 2026, filed October 19, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court accepted respondents' concession that section 1226(a) governed because Carullo Moralez had been formally encountered on entry and released into the interior on his own recognizance. Relying on Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock and cited district decisions, it concluded that his re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. That conclusion supported granting the habeas petition in part, but did not automatically require release.
The court next considered the recent arrest report. Although the charges had been dismissed, it reasoned that respondents might have a legitimate detention interest based on information in that report and that an immigration judge could consider the information when deciding bond and conditions. It also noted that a criminal conviction is unnecessary to find a supervision violation. Quoting Singh v. Chestnut, the court found that the equities and public interests made a post-deprivation bond hearing sufficient in this case.
The order therefore denied the TRO motion as moot and required an individualized hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of service unless Carullo Moralez consented to a later date. Under Singh v. Holder, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or community danger to justify denying bond. If detention without bond is unwarranted, the immigration judge should consider his financial circumstances and alternative release conditions under Hernandez v. Sessions. He must receive at least 72 hours' notice, may appear and be represented by counsel, and any counsel of record in the immigration proceedings must also receive timely notice. The Clerk was directed to serve the detention facility, close the case, and enter judgment for petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- Re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated Carullo Moralez's Fifth Amendment due-process rights under the detention framework the parties accepted.
- The court granted habeas relief in part but did not order immediate release, instead requiring an individualized post-deprivation bond hearing.
- The dismissed criminal charges did not eliminate the government's asserted interest, because the immigration judge may consider arrest-report information in setting bond and conditions.
- The government bears the burden at the hearing to prove flight risk or community danger by clear and convincing evidence to justify denying bond.
- The order supplies specific notice, appearance, counsel, timing, financial-circumstances, and alternative-conditions protections and directs judgment for petitioner.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes establishing an unconstitutional re-detention process from selecting release as the remedy. It treats a prompt, individualized immigration bond hearing as sufficient on these facts, while placing the clear-and-convincing burden on the government and requiring consideration of ability to pay and alternatives when appropriate.
The ruling also shows why dismissed charges do not necessarily end the detention inquiry: the court allowed the immigration judge to assess underlying arrest information rather than treating a conviction as a prerequisite. Its relief is case-specific and leaves the ultimate bond and release-conditions determinations to the immigration judge.