Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jonathan Paul Neri Hernandez, a native of Mexico who has lived in the United States for more than twenty years and previously held DACA status, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Mesa Verde Detention Center in Bakersfield, California. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking immediate release or a bond hearing on the ground that his detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
Petitioner had two relevant encounters with California law enforcement. In March 2025, police recovered approximately 17.4 grams of cocaine concealed in a peanut butter jar inside a FedEx package he attempted to ship; he was charged with possession for sale under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351, but the Monterey County Superior Court dismissed that complaint for insufficient cause in June 2026. Separately, in August 2025 he was arrested for simple possession under § 11350(a); that charge remained pending with Petitioner released on his own recognizance and expected to proceed through pretrial diversion.
ICE arrested Petitioner in June 2026 under an administrative warrant, and DHS issued a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). An Immigration Judge ordered him removed to Mexico in September 2026, and he timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, so the removal order was not yet administratively final. Respondents opposed the petition, arguing mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) based on both the trafficking incident and the possession charge.
The Court’s Holding
The court confirmed jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, explaining that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) did not bar review because no final removal order was at issue and the central question was the legality of Petitioner's continued detention. It rejected the argument that the pending August 2025 possession charge justified mandatory detention, because § 1226(c) and § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) require a conviction or admission of guilt, and Petitioner had neither been convicted of nor pleaded guilty to that offense.
The court agreed, however, that the March 2025 trafficking incident provided a colorable basis for mandatory detention even though the § 11351 charge was dismissed. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) turns not on a criminal conviction but on whether the government has 'reason to believe' the noncitizen is or has been an illicit trafficker or knowingly assisted in trafficking. The court found substantial evidence: Petitioner arrived at FedEx with a suspicious open half-filled jar of peanut butter, lied to the clerk that the package contained cologne, and officers discovered five Ziplock bags of white powder testing positive for 17.4 grams of cocaine, with the manager and clerk identifying him and video surveillance capturing the transaction.
The court therefore denied the habeas petition, denied the TRO motion as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case. In a footnote, it noted that if detention becomes unreasonably prolonged Petitioner may raise a due process challenge at that time, and that he could request a Joseph hearing to show he is not properly included in a mandatory detention category.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) can rest on § 1182(a)(2)(C)'s 'reason to believe' standard, which does not require a criminal conviction for illicit drug trafficking.
- A dismissed state drug trafficking charge can still supply substantial evidence supporting mandatory immigration detention if the underlying facts give the government reason to believe the noncitizen engaged in trafficking.
- A pending controlled substance possession charge without a conviction or guilty plea does not trigger mandatory detention under § 1226(c) and § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).
- The court retained § 2241 jurisdiction over a detention challenge even though § 1252(g) limits review of removal-order execution, because no final removal order was at issue.
- A detainee in mandatory detention may still pursue a due process challenge if detention becomes unreasonably prolonged, or request a Joseph hearing to contest the mandatory detention category.
Why It Matters
This order shows how the 'reason to believe' standard under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) operates in the habeas context to sustain mandatory detention even when criminal charges have been dismissed. The government's burden is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even a conviction, but substantial evidence supporting a reason to believe the noncitizen engaged in or assisted illicit trafficking.
The decision also clarifies the distinction between mandatory detention predicates: trafficking-based inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(2)(C) requires no conviction, while controlled substance inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) does. For detainees and practitioners in the Eastern District of California, dismissed charges will not necessarily defeat mandatory detention where the factual record supports the government's belief, while Joseph hearings and prolonged-detention due process claims remain available.