Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Hernandez-Zelaya, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the California City ICE Processing Facility. His August 31, 2026 petition alleged that his detention was unauthorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) because removal was no longer reasonably foreseeable, and that it violated the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, including procedural and substantive due process. He sought, among other relief, immediate release. Both parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
Respondents argued that Hernandez-Zelaya was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), but acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit had rejected that position in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2026), which held that § 1226(a) governs detention of noncitizens in his circumstances. The court therefore granted the petition in part and declined to address the remaining claims because the detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and due process.
Hernandez-Zelaya, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection on an unknown date and later resided in the interior. Immigration authorities encountered him on May 3, 2026 at the Salt Lake County Adult Detention Complex after an arrest for failure to stop at the command of law enforcement. He was transferred to ICE custody on July 22, 2026, and USCIS issued a Notice to Appear charging removability for entry without inspection and lack of valid entry documents.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) permits habeas relief for custody violating the Constitution or federal law, and that district courts retain jurisdiction over immigration-detention challenges sufficiently independent of the merits of a removal order. Applying Rodriguez Vazquez, the court held that noncitizens apprehended in the interior are subject to discretionary detention under § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Because Hernandez-Zelaya's entry without inspection and interior residence were undisputed, § 1226(a) governed his detention.
The court further held that detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Although the petitioner requested immediate release, respondents acknowledged his entitlement to seek a custody-redetermination hearing under § 1226(a). The court emphasized its broad discretion to condition habeas relief and selected a bond hearing as the appropriate remedy in light of the record's criminal history: a 2021 conviction for failure to stop at the command of law enforcement and driving-under-the-influence convictions in 2024 and 2026.
The order granted the petition in part and required respondents to provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within ten days. At the hearing, the parties may present evidence and argument about whether Hernandez-Zelaya would pose a danger to the community or a flight risk if released. He must receive at least 72 hours' notice and has the right to counsel; any counsel who appeared in the immigration proceedings must also receive 72 hours' notice. The Clerk must serve the facility, terminate pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment for petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision controlled the detention statute for a noncitizen apprehended after residing in the United States interior.
- The court found a Fifth Amendment due-process violation because Hernandez-Zelaya was detained without a pre-deprivation hearing.
- A § 1226(a) bond hearing, rather than immediate release, was ordered within ten days of the order.
- The bond hearing must address danger to the community and flight risk, with evidence and argument permitted from both parties.
- The court did not decide the petition's remaining claims because the statutory and due-process violations resolved the petition in part.
Why It Matters
The decision applies controlling Ninth Circuit authority to reject mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) for an interior apprehension and instead requires the discretionary custody framework of § 1226(a). It also illustrates how a district court can grant meaningful habeas relief without ordering immediate release.
The ordered procedures provide a prompt custody hearing, advance notice, access to counsel, and an opportunity to address dangerousness and flight risk. The court's remedy was tied to the petitioner's documented criminal history, while the judgment and case-closing directives make the partial grant operative.