Judge Ordered ICE to Release Salvadoran Man After Finding It Denied Him a Bond Hearing

DHS is attacking Judge Jinsook Ohta over David Antonio Aviles Perez’s release. But the August 26 order did not clear him of the allegations against him—or find him safe. It found ICE held him for five months without the individualized process the Constitution requires.

A federal judge in San Diego ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release David Antonio Aviles Perez after finding that the government had detained him for five months without a bond hearing or an individualized determination of whether he posed a danger or was likely to flee.

That is the central fact missing from the Trump administration’s furious public response.

The Department of Homeland Security has portrayed Perez, a Salvadoran national, as an MS-13 member wanted in El Salvador for aggravated murder and has accused U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta of recklessly putting Americans at risk. The allegations against Perez are grave. Salvadoran prosecutors say he was convicted in absentia and sentenced to 20 years for a 2014 aggravated murder. But Judge Ohta’s August 26 order did not decide whether he committed that crime, reject the government’s public-safety concerns, or forbid ICE from seeking to detain him through lawful procedures.

It found that ICE had not provided the required individualized process before keeping him in custody.

WHAT HAPPENED

Perez filed a federal habeas petition on August 17 challenging his immigration detention. The docket identifies the case as Aviles Perez v. Blanche, No. 3:26-cv-4706-JO-DEB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He was detained by immigration authorities on March 26 and held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center.

On August 26, Ohta granted his petition. Her order said Perez had been detained for five months without a bond hearing and ruled that the government had violated his Fifth Amendment due-process rights by continuing to confine him without an individualized determination of flight risk or danger to the public.

The judge concluded Perez fell under the discretionary-detention framework in federal immigration law because he was already living in the United States when ICE arrested him. The government had scheduled a bond hearing, but Ohta found that a hearing scheduled after months of detention did not remedy the constitutional claim or establish that he had actually received the process due to him.

Ohta ordered Perez’s immediate release and barred ICE from detaining him again unless an immigration judge first holds a bond hearing that justifies renewed detention. The order was a ruling on the process ICE used—not a declaration that Perez presents no public-safety risk. (habeasdockets.org)

WHAT DHS IS CLAIMING

DHS has responded with an inflammatory political message, labeling Ohta an “activist” judge and arguing that her ruling released a dangerous gang member. In a September 8 Fox News appearance, DHS general counsel James Percival discussed the case as the department sought to defend its detention practices and criticize the ruling. (foxnews.com)

The administration’s public account says Perez is an MS-13 member with an international arrest warrant for aggravated murder in El Salvador and prior California arrests involving assault with a deadly weapon, controlled substances and petty theft. La Prensa Gráfica reported that El Salvador’s Fiscalía General said Perez, also known as “La Bruja,” was convicted in absentia in December 2025 and sentenced to 20 years over the July 2, 2014 killing of a man in La Unión. (laprensagrafica.com)

Those are serious allegations and reported criminal-case facts. They are also precisely why the case demands accuracy rather than slogans. A government’s assertion that someone is dangerous does not eliminate its obligation to make and document an individualized custody decision under the legal framework the court applied.

THE RECEIPTS

The court’s own ruling addressed the government’s position directly. Ohta noted material in the record indicating Perez had previously been convicted after a 2023 fight with another person. But she said the government offered no evidence that ICE had detained him after assessing those facts and making an individualized determination that he posed a danger or flight risk.

That distinction matters. The court did not say ICE lacked evidence it could present at a bond hearing. It said ICE had provided Perez no such process before or after detaining him. The remedy was therefore release unless the government first obtained a legally sufficient bond determination from an immigration judge.

DHS’s rhetoric turns that holding into a claim that a judge ignored public safety. The written order says otherwise: Ohta required an immigration judge to assess the government’s case before any new detention. Her injunction does not permanently immunize Perez from immigration custody, prosecution, extradition, removal proceedings or any other lawful action supported by evidence and proper procedure. (habeasdockets.org)

WHY IT MATTERS

The case sits at the collision point of two responsibilities that do not cancel each other out: protecting the public from people credibly accused or convicted of violent crimes, and preventing the federal government from imprisoning people without constitutionally adequate process.

Trump administration officials often frame immigration detention as a binary choice between mass incarceration and public danger. Ohta’s order rejects that premise. It says the government may seek detention, but it must show an individualized legal basis for it. That requirement is especially consequential when federal agencies invoke gang affiliation, foreign warrants or criminal allegations to justify confinement.

Due process is not a reward for people with sympathetic records. It is the constraint that prevents executive agencies from becoming the sole judge of who can be jailed, for how long and on what evidence. If ICE possesses reliable evidence that Perez is dangerous or likely to abscond, the court’s order lays out a route to present it: a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

The federal docket shows the government filed a motion for reconsideration on September 7, alongside a motion to file documents under seal and a redacted filing. As of September 8, the docket reflects those filings but does not show a ruling granting reconsideration or vacating Ohta’s August 26 release order. (habeasdockets.org)

The next meaningful development will be whether the government can persuade the court to revisit the order, seek appellate intervention, or pursue a new detention decision through the bond-hearing process Ohta required. DHS can make a forceful case about Perez’s alleged conduct. What it cannot accurately claim is that the judge ruled those allegations irrelevant. The ruling says ICE could not skip the individualized process required before depriving a person of liberty.