Immigration

The magistrate judge recommended denying habeas relief.

The magistrate judge recommended immediate release and an injunction against renewed section 1226(a) detention without notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing.

The magistrate judge recommended release under supervision.

The district court granted habeas relief and emergency relief, concluding that the government violated both its own supervision regulations and procedural due process.

The magistrate judge recommended a bond hearing within fourteen days, with advance notice and an opportunity to present evidence.

The magistrate judge recommended granting habeas relief through a prompt bond hearing rather than automatic release.

The district court granted the petition and ordered immediate release.

The magistrate judge recommended immediate release.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice.

The district court granted the petition and ordered immediate release.

The district court granted emergency and habeas relief, applied Ninth Circuit authority governing people apprehended inside the country, and ordered release.

The magistrate judge recommended granting relief and requiring release unless the government promptly proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ferrer posed a danger to the community or a flight risk. Counsel had to be permitted at any hearing.

The district court denied the motion to enforce. Its earlier order guaranteed a constitutionally adequate hearing, not a favorable bond result, and the record showed that the immigration judge applied the required burden and considered the evidence individually.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because detention of a little more than two months was not yet prolonged enough, on the presented record, to create the claimed due-process entitlement. Decisions involving eight, ten, or many more months did not establish the same conclusion for this early

The court ordered a prompt hearing under section 1226(a). At that hearing, the government must justify detention, and the immigration judge must consider financial circumstances and less restrictive alternatives if the petitioner is not shown to require detention.

The district court granted habeas relief. Evidence that Mexico generally would not accept third-country nationals without consent, coupled with the absence of an identified alternative destination, showed no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The court denied the petition without prejudice. Issuance and execution of a warrant within the regulatory period cured the asserted initial defect for purposes of continued detention, and release was not the ordinary remedy for a Fourth Amendment arrest violation.

A California federal court ordered a visa overstayer released because immigration authorities detained him without the process required before disturbing his settled liberty.

The magistrate judge found that none of the five factors used to assess unconstitutionally prolonged civil detention favored immediate release.

The magistrate judge recommended immediate release on the prior conditions.

The district court granted the petition and ordered immediate release.

After independent review, the district court adopted the recommendation, granted relief on procedural due-process grounds, and ordered immediate release with the return of the petitioner’s possessions.

The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice.