Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mohit Salaria filed a habeas petition after immigration authorities re-detained him while removal proceedings remained pending. He had previously been released under § 1226(a). The government agreed that provision applied but argued that Salaria had not requested a bond hearing and that the statute did not place the burden on the government.
The district court addressed whether a hearing offered only after arrest would adequately protect the liberty of a person already living in the community. The government also suggested that a hearing rather than release was appropriate because Salaria had been arrested.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted habeas relief and ordered immediate release. It held that the constitutionally important hearing should have occurred before re-detention. The basic due-process rule is that a person receives an opportunity to contest the deprivation before losing a significant protected interest, unless circumstances justify a different sequence.
The court enjoined renewed detention unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence, at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that Salaria presents danger or flight risk sufficient to require physical custody. The order leaves open detention if an executable final removal order later changes the governing legal circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- A person previously released under § 1226(a) has more than a request-based interest in a hearing after re-arrest.
- The government must justify taking away existing liberty, rather than requiring the detainee to disprove custody after the fact.
- An arrest may be relevant evidence but does not replace an individualized neutral determination.
- Relief can be carefully limited to the current pre-final-order detention posture.
Why It Matters
Salaria is useful for California practitioners challenging re-detention because it frames timing and burden as the heart of the injury. Counsel should seek notice of alleged changed circumstances and prepare a factual response before custody occurs. The clear-and-convincing standard and neutral-decisionmaker requirement also provide concrete benchmarks for evaluating whether any later hearing complies with the injunction.
Practitioners should read the full order before relying on the result because the remedy turns on the particular statutory posture, custody record, and evidence before the court. The ruling is unreported and does not bind other judges, but it supplies a concrete roadmap for developing or defending similar claims. Early preservation of notices, recordings, correspondence, medical records, and custody documents can prevent an avoidable evidentiary gap when accelerated relief is requested.
As a practice point, counsel should build a dated chronology and attach the primary records supporting each important event. The petition or opposition should identify the legal authority for custody or restraint, explain exactly which procedure occurred, and state the requested remedy with workable deadlines. Declarations should separate firsthand facts from assumptions, while proposed orders should address notice, proof, review, and what happens if an agency or party does not comply. That disciplined presentation helps the court distinguish a present constitutional or statutory injury from a hypothetical future dispute. It also gives opposing counsel and the reviewing court a record that can be tested without relying on labels alone. Because later developments may change the governing rule, counsel should update the court promptly about release, a new hearing, a final order, changed medical evidence, or any other event that could affect jurisdiction, mootness, ripeness, or the appropriate scope of relief.
Careful issue preservation also matters on appeal: objections should identify the challenged finding, the supporting record, and the precise legal error rather than incorporate earlier briefing wholesale. That approach makes later review more focused, efficient, and reliable.