Status as of November 9, 2026. A federal judge ordered the immediate release of UC Berkeley student Paula Valentina Albornoz Hernandez after immigration agents detained her at San Francisco International Airport. The decision concerns the legality and procedures of detention, not a grant of asylum or termination of her immigration proceedings.
A trip from San Francisco to Portland became a federal constitutional dispute when immigration agents arrested a University of California, Berkeley student at the airport. On November 9, U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins ordered the release of Paula Valentina Albornoz Hernandez, 23, after more than a week in immigration custody. The decision followed a habeas corpus challenge filed by her lawyers and an unusual mobilization by university officials, students and elected representatives.
The case turns on two distinct legal questions. The first is whether federal officers could detain Albornoz Hernandez without the procedures the Constitution requires. The second is whether she may ultimately remain in the United States. The district court's release order addresses the first issue. Her pending asylum claim and immigration proceedings remain separate.
From a domestic flight to immigration detention
Albornoz Hernandez was waiting to board a flight to Portland with her boyfriend on October 30 when ICE agents approached her at San Francisco International Airport, according to KQED's initial reporting and accounts given to Berkeleyside and the Associated Press. Her boyfriend described agents questioning her identity before separating the couple. The Department of Homeland Security disputed the suggestion that officers failed to identify themselves as law enforcement.
The student was eventually transferred to the California City Detention Facility in the Mojave Desert. She had been studying business administration at UC Berkeley after attending San Jose City College. Her attorney, Nikolas De Bremaeker of Centro Legal de la Raza, said she was conducting research involving artificial intelligence and had no criminal history. The arrest interrupted her coursework and examinations.
Albornoz Hernandez came from Colombia in 2022. Her lawyer said she sought asylum based on gender-based violence in her home country, and that her application remained pending. He also said she held employment authorization and had complied with the relevant proceedings. DHS gave a different account of her immigration position: it said she entered on September 6, 2022, had permission to remain until March 6, 2023, and stayed after that authorization expired.
What the federal judge decided
Attorneys filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court challenging the detention. They argued that the arrest and continued custody deprived Albornoz Hernandez of constitutionally required process, including a meaningful opportunity to contest detention before losing her liberty. According to KQED's November 9 account of the court filing, Judge Coggins found that ICE had failed to provide a constitutionally compliant hearing before detention to address release on bond.
The judge ordered her immediate release, the return of her possessions, including her passport, and no additional electronic-monitoring condition such as an ankle monitor without a further showing at a hearing. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the court found a due-process violation because the government had detained her without adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge the custody decision.
Those findings concern the procedures and legal justification for keeping this particular person in detention. They do not establish that ICE lacks authority to arrest every person with an expired visa, or that every detention at a domestic airport is unconstitutional. The court's order also does not adjudicate the merits of Albornoz Hernandez's asylum application.
Why a pending asylum case did not prevent the arrest
The Department of Homeland Security defended the arrest by emphasizing that a pending asylum application and a work permit do not, by themselves, confer lawful immigration status. In statements reported by CBS Bay Area and KQED, the agency pointed to the expiration of her initial period of authorized stay and said she would receive due process in removal proceedings.
Employment authorization and permission to remain in the country are distinct legal concepts. A pending asylum application may provide a basis for an employment authorization document under federal regulations, but the existence of that document does not itself resolve every question about immigration status or removability. Conversely, a dispute about status does not eliminate the constitutional questions raised by how a person is arrested or detained.
That separation explains the apparently contradictory developments in the case. DHS maintained that the student was subject to immigration enforcement, while the federal court found the government's detention procedures unlawful. Both propositions can be examined in different proceedings, with different legal questions and evidentiary records.
The university and community response
UC Berkeley's administration became publicly involved soon after the arrest. In a November 6 campus message, university leaders said they had contacted her family, arranged academic flexibility, coordinated legal assistance and sought information through Senator Alex Padilla's office. Approximately 30 support letters had been submitted by elected officials, community representatives and university leaders, including Chancellor Richard Lyons.
Students also organized demonstrations demanding her release. Her attorneys described the letters and public attention as evidence of strong community ties. Those expressions of support formed part of the surrounding public controversy, but they are not a substitute for the court's legal findings about detention.
On November 9, the university announced that the federal judge had ordered her release. Chancellor Lyons and other campus officials welcomed the decision and said they expected her to return to her studies. KQED reported that her boyfriend was traveling to pick her up from the detention facility.
What remains unresolved
The release order ends the immediate detention challenged in the federal case, subject to the terms of the ruling. It does not grant permanent residence, asylum or another immigration status. Nor does it automatically dismiss the government's removal case. Reporting before the ruling indicated that an immigration court hearing had been scheduled for November 17, a proceeding distinct from the federal habeas case.
The broader significance lies in the procedural boundary the court enforced. Federal immigration authorities asserted a basis for enforcement arising from an expired period of authorized stay. The judge nevertheless required constitutionally adequate procedures before continued custody. The dispute illustrates how an immigration detention decision can be overturned even while the underlying question of a person's right to remain in the United States is still being litigated.