Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mohit Pathania, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States in 2022 and was detained by immigration officials before being paroled and released under supervision. The court treated the verified petition's factual account as undisputed because the respondents did not answer or dispute it despite having the opportunity to do so. According to that account, Pathania complied with Alternatives to Detention and reporting requirements for nearly four years, had no criminal history, timely sought affirmative asylum, maintained employment authorization, worked, and developed family and community ties.
On October 6, 2026, Pathania appeared voluntarily for a scheduled ICE appointment and was detained. The petition alleged that he received no advance notice, identified violation of his release conditions, meaningful explanation, or individualized pre-deprivation hearing. DHS served a Notice to Appear the next day charging inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). He remained at Adelanto Detention Center when he filed his verified 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition on October 12, represented by counsel.
Pathania asserted procedural and substantive due-process claims and an INA claim based on being treated as subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b). He sought release on his previous conditions, protection against re-detention without adequate procedures and lawful authority, and attorney's fees. The respondents did not file the ordered answer, and Pathania filed a notice of noncompliance with the briefing schedule. The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge for all purposes.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that Pathania's prior release, residence in the United States since 2022, compliance, and community ties created a substantial liberty interest in remaining out of custody. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge framework, it found a high risk of erroneous deprivation without a hearing to assess danger or flight risk. It emphasized the absence of evidence that the earlier release determination had changed, Pathania's lack of a criminal record, and his compliance. It also found the government's interest in detention without notice, reasons, and a hearing low, with no indication that those safeguards would be fiscally or administratively burdensome.
The court therefore held that the arrest without a pre-deprivation hearing violated procedural due process. It ordered release as the remedy necessary to restore the last uncontested status: liberty under the conditions imposed before the October 6 detention. It further concluded that any re-detention would require notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. A footnote additionally stated that immigration judges lacked jurisdiction over Pathania's custody redetermination request under Matter of Q. Li.
Applying eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, the court found irreparable injury, inadequate legal remedies, and hardship and public-interest considerations favoring a limited permanent injunction against future re-detention without the required procedures. The order requires immediate release subject only to the prior conditions, return of confiscated property and documents, and a compliance notice within 24 hours. Any re-detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is prohibited absent at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing applying the court's stated clear-and-convincing standard and individualized bond assessment. The court did not award fees outright; it said it would consider an EAJA application filed within 30 days after final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the habeas petition and ordered Pathania's immediate release on the conditions in place before his October 6, 2026 detention.
- The procedural due-process holding rested on Pathania's substantial liberty interest, the high risk of erroneous detention without a hearing, and the government's low interest in withholding notice and process.
- The limited permanent injunction prohibits re-detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 unless the government first provides at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing.
- At that hearing, the government must satisfy the court's clear-and-convincing-evidence standard concerning materially changed circumstances, flight risk or danger, and the inadequacy of conditions.
- The respondents must return confiscated property and documents and file a notice of compliance within 24 hours, while any EAJA fee application remains for later consideration.
Why It Matters
The decision applies due-process protections to the re-detention of a noncitizen who had lived under parole and supervision for years, rather than treating the government's earlier release decision as freely revocable without individualized process. Its remedy restores the prior release conditions instead of leaving Pathania detained while he seeks only post-deprivation relief.
The injunction is tailored to future re-detention and specifies notice, timing, a neutral decisionmaker, the government's burden, and an individualized bond assessment. The opinion resolves the petition and prospective re-detention issue but leaves any attorney's-fee and costs application for consideration after final judgment.