Gonzalez v. William P. Joyce

Background

Wagner Caraballo Gonzalez, a Colombian citizen seeking asylum in the United States, filed a petition challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under a federal law allowing courts to review unlawful detention. He argued that his Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated when ICE detained him after he attended an immigration-court hearing on October 6, 2025.

Gonzalez had previously been removed from the United States in September 2023 under a procedure for certain people encountered at the border. After he was encountered again in October 2023, immigration officials issued him a notice to appear and released him on his own recognizance. His removal proceedings were later reopened and transferred to Manhattan after he moved to New York with his wife and two children. Gonzalez filed an asylum application and attended several scheduled immigration-court hearings.

At the October 6 hearing, an immigration judge scheduled Gonzalez’s asylum merits hearing for December 2, 2025. After Gonzalez left the courthouse, masked ICE officers arrested him. Gonzalez alleged that the officers did not explain the reason for his arrest and showed him an unsigned warrant stating that there was probable cause for his removal because he was in removal proceedings. ICE transferred him to a detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, where he remained confined when the court ruled.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protection applies to noncitizens regardless of whether their presence in the United States is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. It also explained that a person may challenge the legality of ongoing detention through a detention-review petition, including the lawfulness of detention when it begins.

Under the detention statute the court found applicable, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), ICE was required to make an individualized determination about whether Gonzalez posed a danger to people or property or was unlikely to appear at future proceedings. The court found that no such determination was made. Instead, the undisputed facts showed that Gonzalez was immediately detained after his hearing without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or a showing that circumstances had changed.

The court rejected the respondents’ argument that Gonzalez’s detention was authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), which concerns certain people seeking admission at the border or a port of entry. The court concluded that Gonzalez was not being detained under that provision because he had already been released under § 1226 after his later entry, had lived in the United States for more than two years after that release, and was in ongoing removal proceedings. The court held that he could be detained only on a discretionary basis under § 1226, subject to the required procedures.

The court also rejected the argument that Gonzalez lacked Fifth Amendment protection because he was a noncitizen. It concluded that he was not a person merely at the threshold of initial entry but had been living in the United States while his immigration proceedings continued. Finally, the court excused any requirement that Gonzalez first seek an administrative custody hearing. It reasoned that the alleged policy denied the meaningful initial review he was entitled to receive, and that a later custody hearing could not substitute for a process-based decision when ICE first took away his freedom.

Ruling and disposition

Judge Analisa Torres held that the respondents’ ongoing detention of Gonzalez without prior notice, an individualized assessment, or an opportunity to respond violated due process. The court granted the petition, ordered the respondents to immediately release Gonzalez from custody, and required them to certify compliance by filing on the docket by October 20, 2025.