Lilia Barrios Arroyo v. ICE Field Office Director

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 LILIA BARRIOS ARROYO, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-994-JNW 8 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 9 DOCUMENTS v. 10 ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 11 Respondent. 12 13 Petitioner Lilia Barrios Arroyo, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 14 this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Dkt. No. 1, seeking release from 15 immigration detention on the ground that her continued custody violates her due 16 process rights. Because the record provided by Respondent contains internal 17 inconsistencies, the Court ORDERS Respondent to provide supplemental 18 documents within three (3) days of this Order. 19 Lilia Barrios Arroyo is a citizen of Mexico in the custody of Immigration and 20 Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in 21 Tacoma, Washington. Dkt. No. 7 ¶ 3. The record before the Court does not clearly 22 establish when or how Barrios Arroyo entered the United States; Respondent 23 1 represents only that she “admitted to entering the United States in 2004 and did 2 not possess a valid entry document or other documentation required for lawful

3 entry.” Id. ¶ 8. 4 On July 21, 2025, Barrios Arroyo “encountered” immigration officers at the 5 Orange County Jail in Florida, where she was being held following her arrest for 6 Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon. Id. ¶ 4. ICE issued an immigration 7 detainer citing the Laken Riley Act and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(3) as the basis for 8 detention. Id. Respondent does not provide a copy of the detainer, and the record

9 contains no information regarding the disposition of the underlying state criminal 10 charge. 11 On July 23, 2025, ICE took Barrios Arroyo into custody. Id. ¶ 5. ICE served a 12 Notice to Appear, Form I-862 (“NTA”), charging Barrios Arroyo with being present 13 in the United States without admission or parole and without a valid entry 14 document under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Id. 15 Respondent does not provide a copy of the NTA.

16 On August 11, 2025, a Miami Immigration Judge denied bond for lack of 17 jurisdiction under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 235(b), 8 U.S.C. § 18 1225(b). Id. ¶ 7. Respondent does not provide a copy of the Immigration Judge’s 19 order. Nor does Respondent explain why INA § 235(b)—which applies to applicants 20 for admission—would support Barrios Arroyo’s detention given that the NTA 21 indicates she was present in the United States at the time of her arrest.

22 On October 16, 2025, the Immigration Judge denied all relief and ordered 23 Barrios Arroyo removed to Mexico. Id. ¶ 9. Respondent does not provide a copy of 1 the removal order. Barrios Arroyo appealed, and her case remains pending before 2 the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Id. ¶ 10.

3 On February 3, 2026, ICE transferred Barrios Arroyo to NWIPC. Id. ¶ 14. 4 After Barrios Arroyo requested Bond Redetermination, an Immigration Judge 5 denied bond on February 13, 2026, “noting . . . that there are no changed material 6 circumstances” since the initial bond hearing on August 11, 2025. Id. ¶ 15. 7 Barrios Arroyo again applied for Bond Redetermination and, on March 7, 8 2026, the Immigration Judge denied her request because “the Maldonado Bautista

9 litigation is currently stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court.” Id. ¶ 16 (italics added). 10 Respondent’s briefing contains internal inconsistencies that prevent the 11 Court from determining which statutory authority governs Barrios Arroyos’ 12 detention on the present record. Respondent states “Petitioner is lawfully detained 13 during her removal proceedings pursuant to INA § 236(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Dkt. 14 No. 6 at 3. But the supporting declaration by Christopher Hubbard states that 15 “[t]he Immigration Judge denied bond noting lack of jurisdiction per INA §

16 235(b)[,]” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Dkt. No. 7 ¶ 7. 17 Another Immigration Judge referenced the Maldonado Bautista litigation as 18 if it would apply but for the Ninth Circuit’s stay, even though Respondent appears 19 to claim that Barrios Arroyo is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(3). Dkt. No. 6 at 5 20 (“A detainer was issued noting [Barrios Arroyo] was subject to detention pursuant 21 [to] the Laken Riley Act and to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(3).”). See Bautista v. Santacruz,

22 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1127 (C.D. Cal. 2025), judgment entered sub nom. Maldonado 23 Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1 18, 2025) (defining the bond eligible class as noncitizens who “are not or will not be

9 subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)....”). 3 Respondent does not provide the detainer, the NTA, the removal order, any of

4 the Immigration Judges’ orders denying bond, or any documentation regarding the

5 disposition of the Florida criminal charge. Nor does Respondent provide an

|/explanation for these omissions.

7 The Court declines to rule on the present record. Accordingly, the Court

8 ORDERS Respondent to provide, within five (5) court days of this Order, the

9 following: 10 1. The immigration detainer issued on or about July 21, 2025; 11 2. The Notice to Appear (Form I-862); 12 3. Documentation regarding the disposition of the Florida state criminal charge for Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon; 13 4. The removal order; and 14 5. The Immigration Judge’s order(s) denying bond. 18 If any of these documents are unavailable, Respondent must provide a sworn 16 declaration setting forth the information the document would contain, or an explanation for its unavailability. 18 The Clerk of the Court is directed to note this deadline on the Court’s 19 calendar. 20 Dated this 29th day of April, 2026. 21

23 United States District Judge