1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SATNAM SINGH KHOSA, Case No. 1:26-cv-00532-JLT-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS
14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., (Doc. 1)
15 Respondents. 7-Day Objection Period 16 17 Petitioner Satnam Singh Khosa (“Petitioner”), a federal immigration detainee proceeding 18 by counsel, initiated this action on January 21, 2026, with the filing of a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a contemporaneously filed motion for temporary restraining 20 order that was denied by the Court as untimely. (Docs. 1, 2, 6). Petitioner is in custody of 21 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Golden State Annex facility located in 22 McFarland, California. (Doc. 1 ¶ 27). Respondents are, Kristi Noem (Secretary of the Department 23 of Homeland Security [“DHS”]), Pamela Bondi (Attorney General), Todd Lyons (Acting Director 24 of ICE), Sergio Albarran (Field Office Direction, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), and 25 Warden of the Golden State Annex Facility (hereinafter, “Respondents”). On the parties’ joint 26 stipulation, the Court consolidated this action with Petitioner’s earlier-filed, pro se habeas case 27 (Satnam Singh Khosa v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al., 1:26-cv- 28 00185-JLT-CDB (“Khosa I”)). (Docs. 10, 12, 13). 1 For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s petition for 2 writ of habeas corpus be granted in part as to Petitioner’s claim assertion violation of his procedural 3 due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Count Four”). 4 I. Relevant Background 5 Petitioner is a national of India who entered the United States without inspection on or about 6 September 8, 2021. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 14, 15). He was subsequently arrested by immigration authorities 7 and, thereafter, on September 20, 2021, released from custody pursuant to section 236 of the 8 Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Id. ¶ 15. His release documents from DHS reflect that 9 he was paroled in part because he was deemed to be at heightened risk of severe illness and death 10 upon contracting COVID-19. (Doc. 1-1). Those same documents, which Petitioner signed on 11 September 21, 2021 (see id. at 2), explain that he was required to comply with terms and conditions 12 of his release, including to notify ICE of any address change, to report for hearings and 13 appointments as directed by ICE, and to not violate any laws. Id. Petitioner alleges that he 14 complied with all of his release conditions. (Doc. 1 ¶ 15). He eventually filed an application for 15 asylum and was placed in removal proceedings pursuant to section 240 of the INA. Id.; (Doc. 1- 16 3). 17 Petitioner alleges that, on August 19, 2025, he was detained by ICE officers when he 18 complied with their request to report as directed. (Doc. 1 ¶ 3). He alleges that he requested a 19 custody redetermination by an immigration judge but was informed by the immigration judge that 20 he lacked jurisdiction over his request. Id. ¶ 7. Petitioner contends that his re-arrest and continuing 21 detention by ICE violates his statutory and constitutional rights. He asserts the following four 22 claims: violations of the Administrative Procedure Act [Count One and Count Two]; violation of 23 the INA [Count Three]; violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution [Count Four]. 24 See (Doc. 1 at 13-20). 25 Governing Authority 26 A. The Writ of Habeas Corpus 27 Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United 28 States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 1 shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 2 not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 3 entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 4 Relevant here, “in cases that do not involve a final order of removal, federal habeas corpus 5 jurisdiction remains in the district court” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 where the petitioner 6 “challenges his confinement on statutory and constitutional grounds.” Nadaraja v. Gonzales, 443 7 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2006); accord Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 8 2008) (holding “the district court has jurisdiction over Torres’s habeas petition challenging his 9 detention” in ICE custody). 10 B. Statutory Immigration Framework (8 U.S.C. § 1225 and § 1226) 11 Two statutes govern the detention and removal of inadmissible noncitizens from the United 12 States: 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and § 1225. Relevant here is the legal background presented by the district 13 court in Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-cv-06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503 (N.D. Cal. 14 Sept 12, 2025), which the undersigned adopts herein: 15 1. Full Removal Proceedings and Discretionary Detention (§ 1226) 16 The “usual removal process” involves an evidentiary hearing before 17 an immigration judge. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 108 (2020). Proceedings are initiated under 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1229(a), also known as “full removal,” by filing a Notice to Appear with the Immigration Court. Matter of E-R-M- & L-R-M-, 25 I. & N. 19 Dec. 520, 520 (BIA 2011). Section § 1226 provides that while removal proceedings are pending, a noncitizen “may be arrested and 20 detained” and that the government “may release the alien on ... conditional parole.” § 1226(a)(2); accord Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 21 108 (during removal proceedings, applicant may either be “detained” or “allowed to reside in this country”). When a person is apprehended 22 under § 1226(a), an ICE officer makes the initial custody determination. Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022) 23 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8)). A noncitizen will be released if he or she “demonstrate[s] to the satisfaction of the officer that such release 24 would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the alien is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. 25 § 236.1(c)(8)).
26 “Federal regulations provide that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention.” Jennings v. 27 Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8 CFR §§ 236.1(d)(1)). If, at this hearing, the detainee demonstrates by the preponderance of 28 1 the evidence that he or she is not “a threat to national security, a danger to the community at large, likely to abscond, or otherwise a 2 poor bail risk,” the IJ will order his or his release. Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1197 (citing Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (B.I.A. 2006)). 3 Once released, the noncitizen’s bond is subject to revocation. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b), “the DHS has authority to revoke a noncitizen’s 4 bond or parole ‘at any time,’ even if that individual has previously been released.” Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 968 (N.D. 5 Cal. 2019). However, if an immigration judge has determined the noncitizen should be released, the DHS may not re-arrest that 6 noncitizen absent a change in circumstance. See Panosyan v. Mayorkas, 854 F. App’x 787, 788 (9th Cir. 2021). Where the release 7 decision was made by a DHS officer, not an immigration judge, the Government’s practice has been to require a showing of changed 8 circumstances before re-arrest. See Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2017). 9 2. Expedited Removal and Mandatory Detention (§ 1225) 10 While “§ 1226 applies to aliens already present in the United States,” 11 U.S. immigration law also “authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country under 12 §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2),” a process that provides for expedited removal. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303 (2018). Under § 1225, a 13 noncitizen “who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States” is considered “an applicant for admission.” 8 U.S.C. 14 § 1225(a)(1). For certain applicants for admission, 8 U.S.C. § 1225 authorizes “expedited removal.” § 1225(b)(1). § 1225(b)(1) provides 15 that:
16 “If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) 17 who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 18 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7)], the officer shall order the alien 19 removed from the United States without further hearing or review unless the alien indicates either an 20 intention to apply for asylum under section 208 [8 USCS § 1158] or a fear of persecution.” 21 Sections 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) and 1182(a)(7) respectively refer 22 to noncitizens who are inadmissible due to misrepresentation or failure to meet document requirements. Clause (iii) of § 1225(b)(1) 23 allows the Attorney General (who has since delegated the responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary) to 24 designate for expedited removal noncitizens “who ha[ve] not been admitted or paroled into the United States, and who ha[ve] not 25 affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that the alien has been physically present in the United States 26 continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility under this subparagraph.” 27 § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II).
28 1 To summarize, under § 1225(b)(1), two groups of noncitizens are subject to expedited removal. First, there are “arriving” noncitizens 2 who are inadmissible due to misrepresentation or failure to meet document requirements. The implementing agency regulations 3 define “arriving alien” as applicants for admission “coming or attempting to come into the United States at a port-of-entry.” 8 4 C.F.R. § 1.2. The second group –designated noncitizens –includes noncitizens who meet all of the following criteria: (1) they are 5 inadmissible due to lack of a valid entry document or misrepresentation; (2) they have not “been physically present in the 6 United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility”; and (3) they are 7 among those whom the Secretary of Homeland Security has designated for expedited removal. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 109; § 8 1225(b)(1).
9 “Initially, DHS’s predecessor agency did not make any designation [under (3)], thereby limiting expedited removal only to ‘arriving 10 aliens,’” that is, noncitizens encountered at ports of entry. Make the Rd. N.Y. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-190 (JMC), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11 169432, at *14 (D.D.C. Aug. 29, 2025). In the following years, DHS extended by designation expedited removal to noncitizens who arrive 12 by sea and who have been present for fewer than two years, and to noncitizens apprehended within 100 air miles of any U.S. 13 international land border who entered within the last 14 days. Id. This was the status quo until January 2025, when the Department of 14 Homeland Security revised its § 1225 designation to “apply expedited removal to the fullest extent authorized by statute.” 15 Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 90 Fed. Reg. 8139 (Jan. 24, 2025). Under this designation, expedited removal applies to 16 noncitizens encountered anywhere within the United States, who have been in the United States for less than two years and are 17 inadmissible for lack of valid documentation or misrepresentation. In short, expedited removal was expanded to apply for the first time to 18 vast numbers of noncitizens present in the interior of the United States. 19 Under the expedited removal statute § 1225(b)(1), if an applicant 20 “indicates either an intention to apply for asylum” or “a fear of persecution,” the immigration officer “shall refer the alien for an 21 interview by an asylum officer.” §§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). If the asylum officer determines that the applicant has a “credible fear,” the 22 applicant “receive[s] ‘full consideration’ of his asylum claim in a standard removal hearing.” Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 110. If the 23 officer determines there is no “credible fear,” the officer “shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or 24 review.” § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii). However, the officer’s decision may be appealed by the applicant to an immigration judge, who must 25 conduct the review “to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date of the 26 determination.” Id. Detention under § 1225(b)(1) is “mandatory” “pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and if 27 found not to have such a fear, until removed.” Id. (citing § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) (“Any alien subject to the procedures under 28 this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible 1 fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed.”) 2 [Section] 1225 also contains a provision that applies to applicants for 3 admission not covered by § 1225(b)(1). Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287. This provision, 1225(b)(2), states that, subject to statutory 4 exceptions, “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking 5 admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a [full 6 removal proceedings] of this title.” § 1225(b)(2). In other words, noncitizens subject to 1225(b)(2) are not eligible for expedited 7 removal but are subject to mandatory detention while their full removal proceedings are pending. This is in contrast to the default 8 detention regime under § 1226(a), which allows for discretionary release and review of detention through a bond hearing. 9 3. The Government’s Recent Change in Position 10 Until this year, the DHS has applied § 1226(a) and its discretionary 11 release and review of detention to the vast majority of noncitizens allegedly in this country without valid documentation. This practice 12 was codified by regulation. The regulations implementing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 13 (“IIRIRA”) state that “Despite being applicants for admission, aliens who are present without having been admitted or paroled (formerly 14 referred to as aliens who entered without inspection) will be eligible for bond and bond redetermination.” 62 Fed. Reg. 10312, 10323 15 (Mar. 6, 1997). In fact, the government has conceded in other contexts that “DHS’s long-standing interpretation has been that 16 1226(a) [discretionary detention] applies to those who have crossed the border between ports of entry and are shortly thereafter 17 apprehended.” Dkt. No. 17 (citing Solicitor General, Transcript of Oral Argument at 44:24–45:2, Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785 18 (2022) (No. 21-954)) . . .
19 In 2025, however, the Government’s policy changed dramatically. The DHS revised its § 1225 designation to “apply expedited removal 20 to the fullest extent authorized by statute.” Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 90 Fed. Reg. 8139 (Jan. 24, 2025) (emphasis 21 added). The Secretary of Homeland Security memorandum directed federal immigration officers to “consider ... whether to apply 22 expedited removal” to “any alien DHS is aware of who is amenable to expedited removal but to whom expedited removal has not been 23 applied.” Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 33. Officers are encouraged to “take steps to terminate any ongoing removal proceeding and/or any active 24 parole status.” Id. The memorandum states that DHS shall take the actions contemplated by the memorandum “in a manner that takes 25 account of legitimate reliance interests,” but states that “the expedited removal process includes asylum screening, which is 26 sufficient to protect the reliance interests of any alien who has applied for asylum or planned to do so in a timely manner.” Huffman 27 Memorandum (Jan. 23, 2025).
28 Since mid-May of 2025, the Department of Homeland Security has 1 made a practice of appearing at regular removal proceedings in immigration court, moving to dismiss the proceedings, and then re- 2 arresting the individual in order to place them in expedited removal proceedings. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 35–40. If the immigration judge does 3 not dismiss the full removal proceedings, ICE still makes an arrest, apparently in reliance on § 1225(b)(2)’s detention provision. 4
5 Salcedo Aceros, 2025 WL 2637503 at *1-4 (internal footnotes omitted). 6 C. Parole Revocation 7 In Y-Z-H-L v. Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Or. 2025), the court explained the parole 8 process in immigration cases and noted that before parole may be revoked, the parolee must be 9 given written notice of the impending revocation, which must include a cogent description of the 10 reasons supporting the revocation decision. The court held:
11 Section 1182 . . . has a subsection titled “Temporary admission of nonimmigrants,” which allows noncitizens, even those in required 12 detention, to be “paroled” into the United States. This provision, at issue in this case, states: 13
The Secretary of Homeland Security may, except as 14 provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion parole into the United States 15 temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian 16 reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of 17 such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in 18 the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or 19 be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with 20 in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States. 21 22 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). 23 Id. at 1133 (emphasis added). Y-Z-H-L determined that under the Administrative Procedure Act, 24 immigration parolees are entitled to determinations related to their parole revocations that are not 25 arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1146-47. An agency acts arbitrarily and 26 capriciously by failing to make a reasoned determination or where the agency fails to “articulate[] 27 a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and 28 the choice made.” Id. at 1144 (footnote and citation omitted). Parole revocations in the context of 1 the INA must occur on a case-by-case basis and may occur “when the purposes of such parole shall, 2 in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been served the alien shall forthwith 3 return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled.” Id. at 1133 (quoting 8 C.F.R. 4 § 212.5(e)). 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e) requires written notice of the termination of parole except where 5 the immigrant has departed or when the specified period of parole has expired. 6 Applying Y-Z-H-L and § 212.5(e), in Mata Velasquez v. Kurzdorfer, 794 F. Supp. 3d 128 7 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), the court found that the INA requires a case-by-case analysis as to the decision 8 to revoke humanitarian parole:
9 This Court agrees that both common sense and the words of the statute require parole revocation to be analyzed on a case-by-case 10 basis and that a decision to revoke parole “must attend to the reasons an individual [noncitizen] received parole.” See id. There is no 11 indication in the record that the government conducted any such analysis here. On the contrary, the letter Mata Velasquez received 12 merely stated summarily that DHS had “revoked [his] parole.” Docket Item 62-1 at 5. Thus, there is no indication that—as required 13 by the statute and regulations—an official with authority made a determination specific to Mata Velasquez that either “the purpose for 14 which [his] parole was authorized” has been “accomplish[ed]” or that “neither humanitarian reasons nor public benefit warrants [his] 15 continued presence...in the United States.” See 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i). As a result, DHS's revocation of Mata Velasquez’s 16 parole violated his rights under the statute and regulations. See Y-Z- L-H, 2025 WL 1898025, at *13. 17 18 Id. at 146. And in Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025), the court reached 19 a similar conclusion relying on the Due Process Clause:
20 . . . even when ICE has the initial discretion to detain or release a noncitizen pending removal proceedings, after that individual 21 is released from custody she has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. See Romero v. Kaiser, No. 22-cv-02508, 22 2022 WL 1443250, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2022) (“[T]his Court joins other courts of this district facing facts similar to the present 23 case and finds Petitioner raised serious questions going to the merits of his claim that due process requires a hearing before an IJ prior to 24 re-detention.”); Jorge M. F. v. Wilkinson, No. 21-cv-01434, 2021 WL 783561, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021); Ortiz Vargas v. 25 Jennings, No. 20-cv-5785, 2020 WL 5074312, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2020); Ortega, 415 F. Supp. 3d at 969 (“Just as people on 26 preparole, parole, and probation status have a liberty interest, so too does [a noncitizen released from immigration detention] have a 27 liberty interest in remaining out of custody on bond.”). 28 1 Id. (emphasis added). Other courts, including this Court, have held similarly. See Doe v. Becerra, 2 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1093 (E.D. Cal. 2025); see also Padilla v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 3 704 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1172 (W.D. Wash. 2023) (“The Supreme Court has consistently held that 4 non-punitive detention violates the Constitution unless it is strictly limited, and, typically, 5 accompanied by a prompt individualized hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to ensure that the 6 imprisonment serves the government’s legitimate goals.”). 7 II. Exhaustion 8 A. Governing Authority 9 “Section 2241 … ‘does not specifically require petitioners to exhaust direct appeals before 10 filing petitions for habeas corpus.’” Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 11 Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Ninth Circuit, however, requires 12 that, “as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and administrative 13 remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.” Castro-Cortez, 239 F.3d at 1047 (citing United 14 States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997)). “Under the doctrine of exhaustion, ‘no one is 15 entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed ... remedy has been 16 exhausted.’” Laing, 370 F.3d at 997-98 (citing McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 (1969)). 17 “Exhaustion can be either statutorily or judicially required. If exhaustion is required by statute, it 18 may be mandatory and jurisdictional, but courts have discretion to waive a prudential requirement.” 19 Id. at 998 (citing El Rescate Legal Servs., Inc. v. Executive Office of Immigration Review, 959 F.2d 20 742, 746 (9th Cir. 1991); Stratman v. Watt, 656 F.2d 1321, 1325-26 (9th Cir. 1981)). “Although 21 courts have discretion to waive the exhaustion requirement when it is prudentially required, this 22 discretion is not unfettered…. Lower courts … [must] first determin[e whether] the exhaustion 23 requirement has been satisfied or properly waived.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see Murillo v. 24 Mathews, 588 F.2d 759, 762, n.8 (9th Cir. 1978) (“Although the application of the rule requiring 25 exhaustion is not jurisdictional, but calls for the sound exercise of judicial discretion, it is not lightly 26 to be disregarded.”). 27 B. Analysis 28 Petitioner asserts that he should be relieved of any requirement to exhaust administrative 1 remedies because he requested a bond hearing before an immigration judge and was informed by 2 the immigration judge he lacked jurisdiction over the request. See (Doc. 1 ¶ 34). Respondents do 3 not address this futility argument (see generally, Doc. 14) and do not otherwise oppose Petitioner’s 4 request that the Court waive any exhaustion requirement. 5 The Court finds that the prudential exhaustion requirement should be waived as it would be 6 futile to seek release by administrative means given Respondents’ position that Petitioner is subject 7 to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) and they do not address exhaustion of administrative 8 remedies in their opposition to the petition. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 282 (2018) (“§§ 9 1225(b) … do[e]s not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of 10 their detention.”); Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F. 4th 1189, 1201 (9th Cir. 2022). Further, the 11 BIA has held that all noncitizens present within the country without admission are seeking 12 admission pursuant to § 1225, rendering any administrative relief futile. See J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, 13 No. 1:25-cv-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328, at *7 n.9 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025) (“In 14 addition, pursuit of administrative remedies would almost certainly be futile given the BIA’s recent 15 holding that all noncitizens present in the United States without admission are ‘seeking admission’ 16 for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and must be detained.”) (citing Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 17 29 I&N Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025)). 18 For these reasons and because Respondents do not address that exhaustion should be 19 waived, the undersigned recommends that the prudential exhaustion requirement be waived for 20 Petitioner’s claim for habeas corpus relief. See, e.g, Chavez v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-02325-CAB- 21 SBC, 2025 WL 2730228, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025) (waiving prudential exhaustion 22 requirement because the BIA “already applied its expertise in deciding and designating” Hurtado 23 as precedential, pursuant to which detainees are subject to mandatory detention without bond under 24 § 1225(b)(2)); Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1253 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (“The Ninth 25 Circuit has recognized ‘the irreparable harms imposed on anyone subject to immigration 26 detention.’”) (citing Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 995 (9th Cir. 2017)); J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 27 3013328, at *7 n.9. 28 /// 1 III. Discussion 2 As set forth below, because the undersigned finds that Respondents have violated 3 Petitioner’s constitutional rights to procedural due process, and because Petitioner’s other claims 4 seek the same or similar relief (i.e., for immediate release and to enjoin Respondents from re- 5 detaining Petitioner unless his re-detention is justified at a custody hearing before a neutral arbiter 6 in which the government bears the burden of proof), the undersigned declines to address 7 Petitioner’s other claims.1 8 A. Procedural Due Process 9 1. Governing Authority 10 “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates that ‘[n]o person shall ... be 11 deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’” United States v. Quintero, 995 12 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing U.S. Const. amend. V). “The Due Process Clause ‘protects 13 individuals against two types of government action’: violations of substantive due process and 14 procedural due process.” Id. (citing United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987)). 15 “Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive 16 individuals of ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 17 Fifth … Amendment.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). “[F]reedom from 18 imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at 19 the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). 20 “Procedural due process requires that, even where a deprivation of liberty survives substantive due 21 process scrutiny, the action ‘be implemented in a fair manner.’” Quintero, 995 F.3d at 1051-52 22 (citing Salerno, 481 U.S. at 746). “The ‘right to be heard before being condemned to suffer 23 grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal 24 conviction, is a principle basic to our society.’” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 902 (citation omitted). “The 25
1 Because the undersigned recommends granting relief only on Petitioner’s procedural due 26 process claim and declines to address his INA claim, the undersigned rejects Respondents’ 27 request (Doc. 14 at 1) to adopt the reasoning of Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), given that the Fifth Circuit in that case did not address a due 28 process claim under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 1 fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in 2 a meaningful manner.’” Id. (citing Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). “[D]ue process 3 is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey 4 v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972). 5 “[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including 6 aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas, 533 7 U.S. at 693 (citations omitted); see Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 990 (“[I]t is well-established that the 8 Due Process Clause stands as a significant constraint on the manner in which the political branches 9 may exercise their plenary authority.”). “In the context of immigration detention, it is well-settled 10 that ‘due process requires adequate procedural protections to ensure that the government’s asserted 11 justification for physical confinement outweighs the individual's constitutionally protected interest 12 in avoiding physical restraint.’” Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 990 (quoting Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 13 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011)). 14 2. Analysis 15 On Petitioner’s as-applied procedural due process challenge to his continuing detention by 16 immigration authorities, the undersigned considers (1) “whether there exists a protected liberty 17 interest under the Due Process Clause, and …[(2)] the procedures necessary to ensure any 18 deprivation of that protected liberty interest accords with the Constitution.” Garcia v. Andrews, 19 No. 2:25-cv-01884-TLN-SCR, 2025 WL 1927596, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2025) (citing Kentucky 20 Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989)). 21 Petitioner has an underlying, continuing liberty interest in being free from re-detention. 22 Specifically, Petitioner was released and paroled from custody by ICE approximately four years 23 prior to his re-detention on August 19, 2025. In releasing Petitioner in their discretion, immigration 24 officials necessarily determined that Petitioner did not present a risk of flight or danger to the 25 community. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8) (“Any officer authorized to issue a warrant of arrest may, 26 in the officer’s discretion, release an alien not described in section 236(c)(1) of the Act, under the 27 conditions at section 236(a)(2) and (3) of the Act; provided that the alien must demonstrate to the 28 satisfaction of the officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that 1 the alien is likely to appear for any future proceeding.”). Accord Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1196. 2 During the significant period of time while he his released, Petitioner alleges he complied with his 3 release conditions and maintained a clean criminal record. Respondents do not dispute that 4 Petitioner complied with the conditions of his release, nor do they proffer facts to suggest Petitioner 5 is a danger to the public or a flight risk. See generally (Doc. 14). 6 The undersigned agrees with other courts and other judges of this Court that noncitizens 7 released from immigration custody on parole, general orders of supervision or on their own 8 recognizance have a liberty interest in their freedom that implicates protections under principles of 9 procedural due process. See Guillermo M.R. v. Kaiser, 791 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1031 (N.D. Cal. 10 2025) (“The fact that Petitioner is subject to discretionary conditions of release likewise does not 11 mean he lacks a protectable liberty interest and can be re-detained without process.”); see id. 12 (“[E]ven if immigration detainees must wait months before a periodic re-review of their detention, 13 those already released on immigration bond possess an interest in their continued liberty, which 14 grows over time, and a due process right to a hearing before being re-detained.”); Nak Kim Chhoeun 15 v. Marin, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1245 (C.D. Cal. 2020). Accord Doe, 787 F. Supp. 3d at 1099 16 (considering in connection with a petitioner’s procedural due process claim that “[t]he lengthy 17 duration of his conditional release as well as the meaningful connections Petitioner seems to have 18 made with his community during that time create a powerful interest for Petitioner in his continued 19 liberty”); Ramazan M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-01356-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3145562, at *5- 20 6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025) (“Even when a statute allows the government to arrest and detain an 21 individual, a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause may entitle the individual to 22 procedural protections not found in the statute”). Cf. Daley v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-00922-KES- 23 CDB, 2026 WL 101840, at *9-10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2026) (finding a petitioner mandatorily 24 detained pursuant to § 1226(c) did not have a protectible liberty interest because he had remained 25 in continuous custody and never released on supervision). 26 Respondents assert that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 27 1225(a) and is subject to mandatory detention by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. 14 at 1; 28 citing, Buenrostro-Mendez, supra). But as the undersigned and other judges of this Court and other 1 courts have found, section 1226(a) of the INA, not section 1225(b)(2), provides the appropriate 2 framework for noncitizens released following their initial encounter with immigration authorities 3 and have resided in the United States for a significant period, like Petitioner here. See, e.g., 4 Martinez Flores v. Kaiser, No. 1:26-cv-00582-KES-CDB (HC), 2026 WL 482739, at *5-6 (E.D. 5 Cal. Feb. 20, 2026); H.J.G.G. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01718-JLT-EPG-HC, 2025 WL 3761803, at 6 *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2025) (citing Castillo v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01586-JLT-HBK, 2025 WL 7 3466064, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025)); accord Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 8 935-37 (N.D. Cal. 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-7472 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2025). Under such 9 circumstances, “the government cannot switch tracks” and subject Petitioner to mandatory 10 detention now under section 1225(b)(2) “after it previously released him on his own recognizance 11 under section 1226(a).” Valencia Zapata, 801 F. Supp. 3d at 936; accord Souza v. Robbins, No. 12 1:25-cv-01597-DJC-JDP, 2025 WL 3263897, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2025). 13 Because Petitioner has shown he has a protected liberty interest to remain free from re- 14 detention based on his discretionary release on September 20, 2021, without incident, the 15 undersigned must determine what process is due before the government may terminate that liberty 16 interest. To determine this, the undersigned considers the following factors articulated in Mathews: 17 “[(1)] the private interest that will be affected by the official action; [(2)] the risk of an erroneous 18 deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of 19 additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and [(3)] the Government’s interest, including the 20 function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute 21 procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335; see Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 993- 22 94 (applying Mathews test in immigration detention context); id. at 993 (“The appropriateness of 23 the requirement that ICE and IJs consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of 24 release is confirmed by the balance of factors under Mathews[.]”). 25 As to the first factor, Petitioner has shown he has a significant private interest in remaining 26 on release from detention. He had been released from immigration custody for approximately four 27 years prior to his re-detention. He alleges, and Respondents do not dispute, that he has complied 28 with conditions of release imposed by immigration authorities and remained free from criminal 1 incident. Petitioner’s continued liberty interest in remaining on release is undermined by his re- 2 detention without a bond hearing. Doe, 787 F. Supp. 3d at 1093-94 (“Freedom from imprisonment 3 is at the core of the Due Process Clause…. The lengthy duration of his conditional release as well 4 as the meaningful connections [he] seems to have made with his community during that time create 5 a powerful interest for [him] in his continued liberty.”). 6 As to the second factor, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of Petitioner’s liberty interest 7 is considerable here where he has not received any bond or custody redetermination, despite his 8 request for one. Id. at 1094; A.E. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-00107-KES-SKO, 2025 WL 1424382, 9 at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2025). Because there were no procedural safeguards to determine if 10 Petitioner’s re-detention was justified, and Respondents present no facts indicating any change in 11 circumstances while Petitioner was on release sufficient to justify Petitioner’s re-detention, the 12 probable value of the additional procedural safeguard of a bond hearing to determine whether 13 Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community is high such that this factor weighs in favor 14 of granting a bond hearing. See Doe, 787 F. Supp. at 1094 (“[G]iven that Petitioner was previously 15 found to not be a danger or risk of flight and the unresolved questions about the timing and 16 reliability of the new information, the risk of erroneous deprivation remains high.”); A.E., 2025 WL 17 1424382 at *5; Ramazan, 2025 WL 3145562, at *6. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of 18 granting a bond hearing. 19 Third, the government’s interest in detaining Petitioner without a bond hearing is low, 20 particularly given that Petitioner remained out of custody and was successfully supervised by 21 immigration authorities prior to his re-arrest and detention. Doe, 787 F. Supp. 3d at 1094 (citation 22 omitted); Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2019)); Diaz v. Kaiser, No. 3:25- 23 cv-05071, 2025 WL 1676854, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2025) (“And, like other Courts in this 24 district, the Court concludes that the government’s interest in re-detaining Petitioner-[] without a 25 hearing is ‘low,’ particularly in light of the fact that Petitioner[] has long complied with his 26 reporting requirements.”). “The effort and cost to provide Petitioner with [a bond hearing] is 27 minimal[.]” Doe, 787 F. Supp. 3d at 1094. Therefore, any additional burden from requiring the 28 government to seek a bond hearing before it may re-detain Petitioner does not outweigh his liberty 1 interest and the risk of erroneous deprivation. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of granting 2 a bond hearing. 3 In sum, the undersigned finds that, under Mathews, Respondents have violated Petitioner’s 4 procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution through his arrest 5 in August 2025 and continuous and continuing detention thereafter. 6 B. Petitioner’s Other Claims 7 Because the undersigned finds that the Court may grant the full relief Petitioner seeks—for 8 immediate release and to enjoin Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner unless his re-detention 9 is justified at a custody hearing before a neutral arbiter in which the government bears the burden 10 of proof—in recommending that the writ should issue as to Petitioner’s claim for violation of his 11 rights to procedural due process, the undersigned declines to address Petitioner’s other claims 12 which seek the same or similar relief. 13 C. Remedy 14 Respondents do not assert that Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community. As 15 § 1225(b) does not apply to Petitioner, the government may not detain him pursuant to § 1225(b)(1) 16 and his detention violates his procedural due process rights. And because Respondents do not 17 provide any other basis to detain Petitioner and do not assert any risk of flight or danger to the 18 community, the appropriate remedy is Petitioner’s immediate release. 19 Further, the undersigned will recommend that in the event the government seeks to re-detain 20 Petitioner, the government must provide notice to Petitioner a minimum of seven (7) days in 21 advance and must hold a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to § 1226(a) and applicable 22 regulations, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. Ordinarily, the Petitioner 23 bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence at a bond hearing that he is 24 neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1197. But as set 25 forth above, the BIA has held that all noncitizens within the country without admission are subject 26 to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1). See J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *7 (citing Matter 27 of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025)). 28 Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend adopting the prevailing view endorsed by 1 judges of this Court that, under the circumstances presented here, if Respondents seek to re-detain 2 Petitioner, Respondents be compelled to provide Petitioner a bond redetermination hearing at which 3 the government will bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that 4 Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight. “Doing so is logical” because “the 5 immigrant’s initial release reflected a determination by the government that the noncitizen is not a 6 danger to the community or a flight risk. Since it is the government that initiated re-detention, it 7 follows that the government should be required to bear the burden of providing a justification for 8 the re-detention.” M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01517-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3265446, at *14 9 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025) (relying on Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1034, 1038); accord Omer G. G. 10 v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-cv-01471-KES-SAB, 2025 WL 3254999, at *8-9 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2025). 11 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be GRANTED in part as to Petitioner’s 14 procedural due process claim arising under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 15 Constitution (Count Four). 16 2. Respondents be ORDERED to release Petitioner immediately. 17 3. Respondents be ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless 18 the government provides notice to Petitioner a minimum of seven (7) days in advance 19 and holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and 20 applicable regulations, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered, 21 and where the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that 22 Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community, such that physical custody is 23 legally justified. 24 4. Respondents retain recourse to their statutory authorities to detain Petitioner in the 25 event that an executable final order of removal is issued and Petitioner receives notice 26 of this order, for the sole purpose of executing removal pursuant to the final order of 27 removal. 28 5. Respondents be DIRECTED to file a status report within 14 days of entry of judgment ] setting forth Petitioner’s status. 2 6. The Clerk of the Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment for Petitioner and to close this 3 case. 4 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven (7) days 6 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections 7 | with the Court. Although this objection period is shorter than provided by Local Rule, such an 8 | adjustment is warranted given the nature of Petitioner’s harm, the finding of a violation of the U.S. 9 | Constitution by Respondents, and the fact that the parties have extensively briefed the issues 10 | involved. See United States v. Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (“The court 11 || may require a response within a shorter period if exigencies of the calendar require.”). Any 12 || objections filed should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 || Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without leave of Court and good cause shown. 14 | The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to 15 | refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document 16 | and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages 17 | filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing 18 | these findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 19 | failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 20 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 21 | 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 | ITISSO ORDERED. *3 | Dated: _ February 27, 2026 | Wr bY 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 18