Alva Alva v. Kaiser et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JUAN EDELMAR ALVA ALVA,
Petitioner,
v.
POLLY KAISER, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 25-cv-06676-RFL
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
ENFORCE JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 31
The judgment entered regarding Juan Edelmar Alva Alva’s habeas petition enjoined
Respondents from “re-detaining Alva Alva unless and until Respondents provide Alva Alva a
pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker in which an individualized determination
is made that he poses a flight risk or danger to public safety such that he must be detained, and
that a material change in circumstances justifies his detention.” Alva Alva v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-
06676-RFL, 2026 WL 1910135, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2026). On appeal from a pre-
deprivation hearing, the BIA held that Alva Alva is a flight risk, and that his final order of
removal and denial of withholding of removal constituted a material change in circumstances
justifying detention. (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 2–4.)1 Alva Alva was granted a temporary restraining
order against enforcement of the BIA’s order pending adjudication of his motion to enforce the
previously entered judgment. (Dkt. No. 32.) His motion to enforce the judgment is now
GRANTED. This order assumes the reader is familiar with the facts of the case, the applicable
legal standards, and the parties’ arguments.
The BIA abused its discretion in finding a material change in circumstances justified
Alva Alva’s detention. It concluded the circumstances were analogous to those in Matter of
1 All citations to page numbers in filings on the docket refer to ECF pagination.
Case 3:25-cv-06676-RFL Document 36 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Sugay, 17 I. & N. Dec. 637, 640 (BIA 1981). (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 3.) There, the BIA found a
material change in circumstances based on (1) “newly developed evidence brought out at the
deportation hearing”; (2) “the fact that the respondent has been ordered deported”; and (3) “the
fact that . . . his applications for suspension and withholding of deportation were denied.” 17 I.
& N. Dec. at 640. The situation here is different. The BIA cited only Alva Alva’s “final
administrative removal order dated August 29, 2025” and the fact that “his application for
withholding of removal has been denied.” (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 3.) As to the former, his removal
order actually became final before his prior release in 2018. (See Dkt. No. 31-3 at 36; Alva Alva
v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06676-RFL, 2025 WL 2419262, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025).) It
therefore could not constitute a change in circumstances. And as to the latter, Alva Alva did not
submit his application for withholding of removal until 2023. (Dkt. No. 31-3 at 48.) In fact,
prior to his release in 2018, Respondents recorded that he did not have a fear of persecution or
torture if he was removed from the United States. (Id. at 33.) While Alva Alva contests saying
this (see Dkt. No. 12 at 11 n.5), Respondents released him despite believing he had no credible
fear of return and therefore no viable claim for withholding of removal. The denial of Alva
Alva’s subsequent application for withholding of removal returned him to that status quo. Thus,
the BIA abused its discretion in identifying that denial as a material change in circumstances.
Respondents also point to detention space and their ability to effectuate removal as other material
changes in circumstances. But the BIA’s decision did not rely on those circumstances.
Accordingly, Alva Alva’s motion to enforce the judgment is GRANTED. Respondents
may not rely on the BIA’s September 29, 2026 order to re-detain Alva Alva. The previously
issued permanent injunction remains in place.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-06676-RFL Document 36 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2