Alva Alva v. Kaiser

Background

Juan Edelmar Alva Alva is a 44-year-old Guatemalan citizen. After prior removal proceedings and removals, immigration officials reinstated his removal order in December 2018 but released him under an Order of Supervision. For more than six years, he attended his required immigration check-ins and interviews, except for one promptly corrected omission. He had a work permit, was employed, lived with his wife and two young children, and had support from a local church.

In 2023, Alva Alva applied for withholding of removal, meaning he did not challenge his final removal order but argued that he should not be sent to Guatemala. He said a powerful community member had abused his young daughter, threatened to kill him and his family, and later burned down his family home. On August 6, 2025, an asylum officer interviewed him by speaker phone and found that he did not have a reasonable fear of returning to Guatemala. He appealed that determination to an immigration judge. Immediately after the interview, immigration officials detained him under Section 241(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Alva Alva filed a petition challenging his detention and sought emergency relief. On August 7, 2025, the court ordered the government to release him and barred it from detaining him again without notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. He was released on August 8. The issue before the court was whether to replace that temporary order with a preliminary injunction.

Legal standard

A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment to prevent likely harm while the case continues. The court considered whether Alva Alva was likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, whether the balance of harms favored him, and whether the injunction served the public interest. Because the government was the opposing party, the last two factors were considered together.

Merits

The court held that Alva Alva was likely to succeed on his claim that the Due Process Clause protects his liberty interest in remaining out of immigration custody. The court concluded that Section 1231(a) did not require his mandatory detention because his 90-day removal period began when his removal order was reinstated in December 2018. His later withholding-of-removal application and the asylum officer’s decision did not restart that period. After the 90-day period, the statute generally provides for supervision, although it permits—not requires—continued detention in some circumstances.

The court also found that Alva Alva had a protected liberty interest in remaining released. His long period outside custody, employment, family responsibilities, community relationships, and history of attending required check-ins supported that interest. The court rejected the government’s reliance on a Supreme Court decision concerning the presumptively reasonable length of detention, explaining that the decision did not address what process is required before a person who has been released is returned to custody.

Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that a hearing before detention was likely required. Alva Alva had a substantial interest in remaining at home, working, supporting his family, and maintaining his community relationships. Without a hearing, there was a significant risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty, particularly because the government had offered no evidence that detention was necessary to prevent flight or danger to the community. The government also had not shown that providing a hearing before an immigration judge would impose a significant administrative or financial burden.

The court did not reach Alva Alva’s separate substantive due process claim that the government lacked a legitimate reason to detain him because neither dangerousness nor flight risk supported detention. The court found that the preliminary injunction addressing the required hearing eliminated the immediate threat relevant to that claim.

Irreparable harm, equities, and public interest

The court found that Alva Alva faced immediate and irreparable harm because he could be detained again without a hearing, potentially losing income and being unable to care for or remain with his wife and young children. The court concluded that the balance of harms and public interest also favored relief because preventing a likely constitutional violation imposed minimal costs on the government, while detention could cause significant harm to Alva Alva and his family.

Order

The court granted Alva Alva’s request for a preliminary injunction and waived any bond requirement. During the case, the government may not re-detain him without first providing a hearing before an immigration judge to decide whether detention is warranted based on flight risk or danger to the community. The opinion’s signature is incomplete, so the judge’s full name cannot be confirmed from the text provided.