Xinhai H., an asylum seeker from China, entered the United States without inspection in July 2024 and was initially detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for two months. After establishing credible fear of persecution, he was released on his own recognizance in September 2024 and lived in Flushing, New York, where he maintained stable housing, developed community ties, and complied with all immigration reporting requirements including scheduled ICE check-ins.
Judge Nunley found that the government's decision to release Xinhai created an 'implicit promise' that he would not be re-detained if he complied with release conditions. 'The Government's decision to release Petitioner on recognizance was an "implicit promise" that he would not be re-detained during the pendency of his immigration proceedings if he abided by the terms of his release,' Nunley wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent from Morrissey v. Brewer.
The court rejected the government's argument that Xinhai was subject to mandatory detention as an 'applicant for admission' under federal immigration law. 'The government's proposed interpretation of the statute (1) disregards the plain meaning of section 1225(b)(2)(A); (2) disregards the relationship between sections 1225 and 1226; (3) would render a recent amendment to section 1226(c) superfluous; and (4) is inconsistent with decades of prior statutory interpretation and practice,' Nunley wrote, citing a recent ruling from Judge Mueller in the same district.
The case began when Xinhai was unexpectedly detained during a routine ICE check-in on January 16, 2026. He had been living freely in the community for over 16 months with no criminal history. ICE denied his requests for bond redetermination in February and April 2026, claiming lack of jurisdiction. Xinhai filed his habeas corpus petition on April 7, 2026, while detained at California City Corrections Center.
The government opposed Xinhai's petition, arguing he had no liberty interest because he was an 'applicant for admission.' But Judge Nunley found this argument unpersuasive, noting that courts throughout the Ninth Circuit 'have repeatedly rejected Respondents' position.' The judge applied the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, finding that Xinhai's substantial liberty interest and the high risk of erroneous deprivation outweighed any government interest in detention without process.
Nunley's ruling extends a trend in the Eastern District of California, where judges have consistently found that asylum seekers who entered without inspection but were released into the community are not subject to mandatory detention. The decision cited multiple recent cases from the district reaching the same conclusion, including rulings by Judges Mendez, Bencivengo, and Mueller.
The court ordered ICE to immediately release Xinhai under the same conditions as his previous release and enjoined the government from re-detaining him without constitutional protections. Any future detention would require seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral fact-finder, where the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that detention is justified. The ruling also requires that Xinhai be allowed to have counsel present at any such hearing.