Amro Yousry Abdeltawab, an Egyptian citizen who entered the U.S. in 2019 and applied for asylum, was arrested outside his home on February 12, 2026, when immigration authorities reopened his removal case without explanation. Abdeltawab had been living freely since 2019, working under government-issued employment authorizations that he renewed as recently as January 2025, after the Immigration Court administratively closed his removal proceedings in February 2024 with the government's consent.
Judge Fitzgerald granted Abdeltawab's motion for preliminary injunction, finding he had demonstrated a likelihood of success on his due process claim. 'Petitioner has a vested liberty interest in remaining free from detention as he has lived for the last almost seven years,' Fitzgerald wrote, applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge to conclude that the government failed to provide adequate procedural safeguards before detention.
The judge sharply criticized the government's failure to mount a substantive defense, noting that immigration officials 'did not address the merits of the Application as pertaining to the due process or the APA claims raised by Petitioner.' Instead, authorities argued only that Abdeltawab was entitled to a bond hearing rather than release. 'Left without any meaningful opposition from Respondents, the Court agrees that Petitioner has shown a likelihood of success on his due process claim, and that the proper remedy is immediate release,' Fitzgerald wrote.
The case arose after Abdeltawab was charged as removable in October 2019 following his asylum application. However, the government consented to administrative closure of his proceedings in February 2024 and continued granting him employment authorization documents. The government provided no explanation for suddenly arresting him outside his home in February 2026 and reopening the case.
The government's response focused solely on arguing that Abdeltawab might be entitled to a bond hearing under a separate class action settlement, Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, rather than challenging his constitutional claims. Judge Fitzgerald found this inadequate, particularly given the high risk of erroneous detention without a pre-deprivation hearing. 'Civil immigration detention is permissible only to prevent flight or protect against danger to the community,' he wrote, noting there was no evidence Abdeltawab posed either risk.
Fitzgerald's ruling aligns with a growing trend in the Central District of California, where judges have recognized that noncitizens who have been released from custody develop protected liberty interests in remaining free. The judge cited recent decisions including Pinchi v. Noem and Meneses v. Santacruz, which established that 'even when ICE has the initial discretion to detain or release a noncitizen pending removal proceedings, after that individual is released from custody [he or] she has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody.'
The court ordered immediate release by April 15, 2026, and permanently enjoined authorities from re-detaining Abdeltawab without providing notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge. Judge Fitzgerald declined to require bond, exercising his discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow for further proceedings on the merits.