Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jorge Alejandro Valencia Perez, an immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 9, 2026. He challenged his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and separately sought a temporary restraining order requiring either his immediate release or a bond hearing. The court set a briefing schedule and directed the respondents to identify any law or fact distinguishing the case from several earlier decisions. It also asked them to state any opposition to resolving the underlying habeas petition on the existing briefing.
The respondents filed their opposition on October 14, 2026 and did not object to a ruling on the petition at that time. According to the order, Valencia Perez stated that he had been in the United States for 20 years without inspection by immigration authorities and first encountered those authorities when ICE apprehended him in October 2026. He remained in immigration custody. The respondents conceded that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was the only statutory basis for his current detention and did not oppose a court-ordered post-deprivation bond hearing. The court nevertheless concluded that the appropriate remedy was immediate release.
The Court’s Holding
The court incorporated its reasoning in Zurita Navarro v. Warden, Central Valley Annex Detention Facility, where it had concluded that the government's failure to follow § 1226(a) procedures made the petitioner's detention unlawful and warranted immediate release. Applying that reasoning here, the court identified four evidentiary gaps: there was no evidence of an initial custody determination, an opportunity for Valencia Perez to show an immigration officer that he would not present a flight risk or danger if released, notice of the basis for his continuing detention, or even issuance of an arrest warrant. On that record, the court found that the respondents had not complied with § 1226(a) in initially detaining him. It concluded that the initial detention was unlawful and that immediate release, rather than merely a later bond hearing, was the appropriate remedy.
The order granted the habeas petition and directed the respondents to release Valencia Perez immediately. It also enjoined and restrained them from re-detaining him for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge. At such a hearing, the burden must be set in accordance with § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. The temporary-restraining-order motion was denied as moot because the habeas ruling supplied the requested release relief. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the warden of the Central Valley Annex, enter judgment for Valencia Perez, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A detention supported only by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was held unlawful where the record showed none of the required initial custody procedures.
- The absence of evidence concerning a custody determination, an opportunity to address flight risk or dangerousness, notice of the detention basis, and an arrest warrant drove the court's compliance finding.
- The court ordered immediate release even though the respondents had agreed not to oppose a post-deprivation bond hearing.
- Any future detention is restricted absent exigent circumstances and requires notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge, with the burden governed by § 1226(a) and its regulations.
- The separate request for a temporary restraining order became moot once the court granted habeas relief, and judgment was entered for the petitioner.
Why It Matters
The decision treats compliance with § 1226(a)'s detention procedures as essential to the lawfulness of custody, not simply as a matter that can be cured by offering a bond hearing after litigation begins. The government's concessions about the statutory basis for detention and its willingness to accept a post-deprivation hearing did not prevent the court from ordering release.
The re-detention restriction also gives the ruling continuing practical effect. Except in exigent circumstances, the respondents must provide notice and a hearing before an immigration judge before detaining Valencia Perez again, and the applicable burden must follow § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. The order resolved the petition on the existing briefing with the respondents' acquiescence and did not leave the underlying habeas claim for later proceedings.