Background
Petitioner Michell Lorena Perdomo Amaya, a native and citizen of Colombia, entered the United States without inspection in May 2022 as a minor. She was briefly detained by the Department of Homeland Security and released on her own recognizance under section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1226), then continuously resided in the United States for over three and a half years. On January 24, 2026, she was arrested for a first-offense misdemeanor DUI that remained unadjudicated; on January 29, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement took her into custody and detained her under the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) without a bond hearing.
On April 21, 2026, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her detention. She asserted four claims: that re-detention under § 1225(b)(2) violated the INA because she should have been detained under § 1226(a); that re-detention without a bond hearing violated her Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights; and that new detention policies violated ex post facto principles and the Administrative Procedure Act. Respondents argued she was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), citing DHS v. Thuraissigiam and Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei.
An immigration judge ordered her removed on June 9, 2026, and her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending. She was detained at the California City Immigration Processing Center for over nine months without a bond hearing. The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations dated November 3, 2026, filed November 4, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the petition on Claims One and Two. On Claim One, the court finds that re-detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) violated the INA. Under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), which requires an individualized determination of flight risk and dangerousness and provides for a bond hearing.
On Claim Two, the court finds that re-detention without a pre-deprivation bond hearing violated her procedural due process rights. She had a protected liberty interest in her continued release because the government released her on her own recognizance in 2022 and allowed her to remain at liberty for over three and a half years. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, her strong private interest in freedom from detention, the high risk of erroneous deprivation after nine months without any hearing, and the minimal burden on the government all weigh in her favor.
The court rejects respondents' reliance on Thuraissigiam and Mezei as cases about admission rather than detention; the Ninth Circuit in Padilla v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement held that noncitizens found well inside the country are protected from arbitrary detention. As a remedy, the recommendation is immediate release under the same conditions as before her January 29, 2026 detention, return of her documents and possessions, no additional restrictions absent a future hearing, and an injunction barring re-detention unless respondents give at least seven days' written notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. It does not address detention after an executable final removal order, directs a compliance notice within three days of an adopting order, and leaves Claims Three and Four unaddressed because Claims One and Two already support release.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States after living in the country for years are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2), and are entitled to a bond hearing.
- Release on one's own recognizance followed by years at liberty creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest that cannot be revoked without procedural due process.
- The Fifth Amendment requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before the government may re-detain a previously released noncitizen, even after a misdemeanor arrest.
- A post-deprivation hearing offered months after re-detention is structurally inadequate to cure the violation.
- The document is a recommendation, not a final order: it remains subject to review by the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with objections due within three days.
Why It Matters
This recommendation reinforces Eastern District of California and Ninth Circuit authority rejecting the government's expansive reading of mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) for noncitizens apprehended in the interior, and confirms that noncitizens released and living in the United States for years are protected from arbitrary re-detention without a hearing.
Practically, the government must provide pre-deprivation process before re-detaining a previously released noncitizen, and immediate release is the recommended remedy for prolonged detention without that process. Because these are findings and recommendations, the assigned district judge may review and adopt, modify, or reject them.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket