Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Allen Joseph Tayson, a citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States on a B-2 visa in 2002 as a minor. In 2014, he was convicted of assault with a firearm under California Penal Code § 245(a)(2) and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. On November 6, 2023, USCIS approved his I-130 petition. On February 13, 2025, USCIS received his I-485 application for adjustment of status. On February 23, 2026, ICE arrested Tayson at his scheduled USCIS adjustment interview in San Jose.
Tayson filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on April 21, 2026, challenging his prolonged detention and re-detention. The court construed the petition as raising due process claims regarding re-detention and statutory authority for detention. Respondents initially argued Tayson was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) based on his conviction, or alternatively eligible for a bond hearing under § 1226(a). On August 12, 2026, Tayson received a bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1236. Respondents then moved to dismiss the petition as moot. The court ordered supplemental briefing on whether § 1226(c) applied given Ninth Circuit precedent and on cases granting habeas relief for arrests at adjustment interviews.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended granting the habeas petition, denying Respondents’ motion to dismiss, and ordering Tayson’s immediate release. The court finds that Tayson’s conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(2) does not constitute a crime of violence or aggravated felony triggering mandatory detention under § 1226(c), following the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Gomez, 165 F.4th 1199 (9th Cir. 2026). Thus, the sole statutory basis for detention is § 1226(a), which provides for discretionary bond. More critically, the court finds Tayson had a protected liberty interest in remaining free from custody based on his 20+ years in the United States, approved I-130, pending I-485, and the government’s decision not to detain him during that period. Relying on Amezquita Diaz v.
Albarran (N.D. Cal. 2026) and Garcia De Castillo v. Mullin (E.D. Cal. 2026), the court holds that Tayson’s warrantless arrest at his adjustment interview without a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process. The subsequent post-deprivation bond hearing six months later cannot cure this constitutional violation. Respondents conceded the case is indistinguishable from those precedents.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen with deep community ties, approved immigrant petitions, and pending adjustment applications who is arrested at a USCIS interview without prior notice or a pre-deprivation hearing has a protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment.
- A post-deprivation bond hearing under § 1226(a) does not retroactively cure a due process violation arising from the government’s failure to provide a pre-deprivation hearing before revoking a government-sanctioned liberty interest.
- California Penal Code § 245(a)(2) (assault with a firearm) does not qualify as a crime of violence or aggravated felony triggering mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) after United States v. Gomez (9th Cir. 2026 en banc).
- The government’s decision to grant and renew employment authorization and approve I-130 petitions while leaving a noncitizen at liberty vests a liberty interest protected by due process.
- Arresting a noncitizen at a scheduled adjustment of status interview—after years of compliance with immigration processes—without individualized determination of flight risk or danger violates due process.
Why It Matters
This Findings and Recommendation reinforces a growing line of district court decisions in California holding that noncitizens with longstanding ties and pending immigration benefits possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest that cannot be extinguished by warrantless arrest at USCIS interviews without pre-deprivation process. The ruling applies the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to immigration detention, emphasizing that the government’s own conduct—approving petitions, granting work authorization, and scheduling interviews—creates reliance interests that trigger due process protections.
The decision also clarifies that post-deprivation bond hearings are insufficient remedies for initial constitutional violations, distinguishing between the adequacy of process for initial detention versus continued detention. The reliance on United States v. Gomez to foreclose § 1226(c) mandatory detention removes a key government argument and underscores the categorical approach’s impact on California convictions. The recommendation for immediate release, rather than remand for a new hearing, signals the severity of the due process violation found.