Kymberly K. Evanson
How Judge Evanson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Applies the Mathews v. Eldridge three-factor procedural-due-process test to immigration re-detention, and finds that re-detaining a previously-released noncitizen without a pre-deprivation hearing violates the Fifth Amendment -- a protected liberty interest, high risk of erroneous deprivation, and minimal Government interest in skipping a hearing. Yildirim, Dkt. 12 (2026-01-15); Petrov, Dkt. 14 (2026-01-14).
“the Court finds that the Government's interest in re-detaining non-citizens previously released without a hearing is 'minimal': any administrative or financial burdens in providing Petitioner a hearing are far outweighed by the risk of erroneous deprivation of the liberty interest at issue.”
Procedural preferences
Reads the immigration jurisdiction-stripping bars narrowly: 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), (b)(9) and (e)(3) do NOT bar a habeas challenge to the PROCEDURE of re-detention (as distinct from review of the decision to commence removal or to remove). Yildirim, Dkt. 12.
“Her petition does not seek review of anything related to her removal proceedings. Instead, she seeks judicial review of the procedure by which she was re-detained without notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.... the Court therefore rejects the Government's jurisdictional challenge.”
Rejects the Government's 8 U.S.C. 1225(b) mandatory-detention theory for noncitizens who have lived in the U.S. for years, favoring 1226(a) and declining to read the statute to engender constitutional problems. Petrov, Dkt. 14; Yildirim, Dkt. 12.
“The overwhelming majority of courts to address the issue have agreed that Section 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention provision of Section 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to a noncitizen in Petitioner's position who has resided in the United States for many years.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Habeas petition N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. No. 1. The Government is ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to the same conditions that governed her release prior to her detention in December 2025. The Government may not re-detain Petitioner until after a hearing with adequate notice on her alleged release violation before a neutral decisionmaker.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. No. 1. The Government is ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to the same conditions that governed his release prior to his detention in December 2025. The Government may not re-detain Petitioner until after a hearing with adequate notice on his alleged release violations before a neutral decisionmaker.”