The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 AT SEATTLE
9
10 Case No. C26-144RSM
11 Z.A., ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
12
Petitioner, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
13
v.
14
LAURA HERMOSILLO, Acting Seattle
15
Field Office Director, et al.,
16
Respondents.
17
18
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Z.A.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
19
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. #1. The Court has reviewed the Petition, the
20
Response filed by the Government, Dkt. #8, a reply, Dkt. #11, and the remainder of the record.
21
22 The following facts are taken from the verified petition and a declaration of a deportation officer
23 submitted by the Government. See Dkts. #1 and #9. The parties generally agree as to the core
24
facts of this case and disagree only about the application of law.
25
Petitioner Z.A. is a 28-year-old asylum-seeker from Yemen who has been detained at the
26
27 Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, Washington, since June 22, 2025.
28
Z.A. entered the United States by crossing the Rio Grande River on June 20, 2021, and
1
2 was apparently picked up by Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) later that day. He was charged
3 under 8 U.S.C. § 1459(a) for a misdemeanor failure to comply with reporting requirements after
4
entry. Z.A. pleaded guilty on February 2, 2022, was sentenced to eight months, with credit for
5
time served, and then transferred to immigration custody.
6
In April of 2022, Z.A. was interviewed by an asylum officer and found to have a credible
7
8 fear of torture in Yemen. On April 19, 2022, Z.A. was served with a Notice to Appear charging
9 him as an individual present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled. On June 6, 2022, he
10
filed an I-589 application for asylum. That same day, an immigration judge (“IJ”) released him
11
on a $20,000 bond. He made his way to the Seattle area. On May 12, 2023, the Seattle
12
13 Immigration Court scheduled a master calendar hearing for July 14, 2025. See Dkt. #9 at 3.
14 Z.A. lived in the Seattle area for several years without incident until June of 2025. He
15
was picked up by Canadian immigration at Peace Arch Park on the border between Washington
16
State and Canada in what he calls an “unfortunate incident” where he inadvertently crossed the
17
border. See Dkt. #1 at 14.
18
19 Canadian officials processed Z.A. as an asylum applicant, applied the Safe Third Country
20 regulation, denied him entry, and returned him to U.S. CBP custody. CBP sent him to the
21
NWIPC, where he has been detained for over seven months. His bond was cancelled.
22
Z.A. was not provided with an opportunity before a neutral adjudicator to explain and
23
argue that he did not intend to enter Canada. To his knowledge, he has not been provided with
24
25 any notice regarding the cancellation or breach of his $20,000 bond.
26
27
28
Respondents continued to process his case pursuant to his previously filed Notice to
1
2 Appear (“NTA”), and set him for an individual, or merits, hearing on his asylum case on October
3 31, 2025. The IJ denied his asylum claim and ordered him removed to Yemen.
4
Z.A. appealed this denial, and that appeal is still pending at the Board of Immigration
5
Appeals (“BIA”). No briefing schedule has been issued.
6
While in custody, Z.A. applied for Temporary Protective Status (“TPS”). This was on
7
8 December 8, 2025, and no progress has been made on that front. Congress established the TPS
9 program as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub L. No. 101-649, § 302, 104 Stat. 4978,
10
5030–36, to provide temporary relief to noncitizens from countries facing wars, disasters, or
11
emergencies that make safe return to their countries of origin impossible. The DHS Secretary
12
13 may designate a country for TPS if the Secretary finds that there is: (A) an “ongoing armed
14 conflict” in the country that “pose[s] a serious threat to the[] personal safety” of people from that
15
country; (B) there has been an “environmental disaster in [that country] resulting in a substantial,
16
but temporary, disruption of living conditions,” where the state cannot handle return of the
17
country’s nationals, and where the foreign state officially requests TPS designation; or (C) there
18
19 “exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent” noncitizens from
20 safely returning. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(1). Yemen was initially designated for TPS on
21
September 3, 2015. For individuals who did not have TPS previously, Yemen was re-designated
22
on September 4, 2024. DHS “shall not remove the [noncitizen] from the United States during
23
the period in which [TPS] status is in effect.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(a)(1)(A).
24
25 A noncitizen’s TPS application must establish three basic criteria for eligibility: (1) he
26 must have “been continuously physically present in the United States since the effective date of
27
the most recent designation” of the foreign country; (2) he must have “continuously resided in
28
the United States since such date as the [Secretary] may designate;” and (3) he must be
1
2 “admissible as an immigrant” and “not ineligible for temporary protected status” based on his
3 criminal history or other delineated conduct (e.g., terrorist activity or religious persecution of
4
others). 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(1)(A); see also 8 C.F.R. § 244.2. Congress made certain exceptions
5
to the admissibility requirement, including for individuals who are inadmissible because they
6
lack a valid entry document. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(A)(i) (incorporating provisions of 8
7
8 U.S.C. §§ 1872(a)(5) and (7)(A)); see also 8 C.F.R. § 244.3.
9 The statute also provides for temporary benefits while a TPS application is pending, but
10
only after the noncitizen “establishes a prima facie case of eligibility.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(a)(4)(B);
11
see also 8 C.F.R. § 244.5(b).
12
13 The parties disagree about whether this Court can determine Z.A.’s prima facie case of
14 eligibility for TPS. Petitioner cites Salad v. Dep't of Corr., 769 F. Supp. 3d 913, 922–23 (D.
15
Alaska 2025), where the Court examined the record and found that “Salad has shown that he has
16
applied for TPS and is prima facie eligible.” Id. Respondents cite Osman v. Schmidt, No. 25-cv-
17
286, 2025 WL 870048, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 20, 2025) at *2 (“[Petitioner’s] argument seems to
18
19 be that he is entitled to release in the interim—i.e., before USCIS makes a prima facie
20 determination of his TPS eligibility. But that outcome is not supported by the text of the statute
21
or implementing regulations, which afford applicants relief only after the applicant is found prima
22
facie eligible.”). On the facts of this case, the Court finds it improper to weigh in on Z.A.’s TPS
23
eligibility at this time. But that is not Z.A.’s only basis for seeking habeas relief.
24
25 Federal courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus to an individual in custody
26 if such custody is a “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]” 28
27
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). In this case, Petitioner contends that his arrest and detention violate the
28
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits
1
2 the federal government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due
3 process of law[.]” U.S. Const. Amend. V. The right to due process extends to “all ‘persons’
4
within the United States, including [non-citizens], whether their presence here is lawful,
5
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693, 121 S. Ct. 2491,
6
150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001).
7
8 “Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive
9 individuals of ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of
10
the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47
11
L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard
12
13 ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Id. at 333 (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo,
14 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S. Ct. 1187, 14 L. Ed. 2d 62 (1965)). Determining whether an
15
administrative procedure provides the process constitutionally due:
16
generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the
17 private interest that will be affected by the official action; second,
the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the
18
procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or
19 substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's
interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and
20 administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural
requirement would entail.
21
22 Id. at 335.
23 In Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, the Ninth Circuit assumed without deciding that Mathews’
24
three-part test applies in “the immigration detention context.” 53 F.4th 1189, 1206-07 (9th Cir.
25
2022). The parties both discuss the application of the Mathews text applies here, and the Court
26
27 will consider each Mathews factor in turn to determine whether Petitioner’s arrest and detention
28 comport with constitutional due process requirements. In so doing, the Court is mirroring the
application of this test used by other judges in this District. See, e.g., E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, et
1
2 al., No. 25-1192-KKE, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 2402130 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 19, 2025).
3 Petitioner’s interest in not being detained is “the most elemental of liberty interests[.]”
4
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 529, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 159 L. Ed. 2d 578 (2004). That Petitioner
5
was handed over to ICE without notice and after committing no crime, detained for seven months,
6
and remains in custody undoubtedly deprives him of an established interest in his liberty.
7
8 The second Mathews factor considers whether a particular process results in a risk of
9 erroneous deprivation of a protected interest. The Court agrees with Petitioner that the risk of
10
erroneous deprivation of his liberty interest in the absence of a pre-detention hearing is high
11
under the particular facts of this case.
12
13 In the final Mathews factor, the Court considers the Government’s interest in arresting
14 and detaining Petitioner without a hearing. The Government clearly has an interest in detaining
15
removable non-citizens under certain circumstances to the extent needed to ensure that they do
16
not abscond or commit crimes. But where Petitioner has been living for years in the Seattle area
17
on bond, following all the rules and waiting for his hearing, and there was no material change in
18
19 his particular factual circumstances prior to arrest, the Government fails this factor. It is likely
20 that Petitioner will qualify for the TPS program. There is no evidence on the record that he is a
21
flight risk or danger to the community. The Court finds that the Government’s interest here is
22
low. See also E.A. T.-B., supra.
23
Based on this review of the Mathews factors, the Court finds that Petitioner has a
24
25 protected liberty interest in his continuing release from custody, and that due process requires
26 that Petitioner receive a hearing before an immigration judge before he can be re-detained.
27
28
The Government argues that Petitioner’s re-detention at the Canadian border qualifies as
1
2 a special case because he left and then reentered the United States. The Court finds this
3 inadequate. Based on the existing factual record, there is no reason to believe that Petitioner’s
4
departure and reentry into the United States was anything other than a visit to the Peace Arch
5
Park.
6
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
7
8 finds and ORDERS that Petitioner’s habeas petition is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that
9 Petitioner shall be released from custody immediately and may not be re-detained until after an
10
immigration court hearing is held (with adequate notice) to determine whether detention is
11
appropriate. Petitioner’s unopposed Motion to proceed under pseudonym, Dkt. #6, is
12
13 GRANTED.
14 DATED this 26th day of February, 2026.
15
16 A
17
18 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28