Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner F.M.R., a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection in 2000 and resided continuously in the country, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on November 25, 2025, after presenting himself for an interview in his pending immigration case. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 19, 2026, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that detention without a hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Respondents argued that petitioner was an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) subject to mandatory detention. The district court treated the motion as one for a preliminary injunction and, on February 25, 2026, rejected that argument, granting an order requiring an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge under § 1226(a) within ten days. Petitioner received a bond hearing on March 6, 2026, and was released on March 8, 2026.
The action was then referred to the assigned magistrate judge, and the merits were fully briefed. While briefing was pending, the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, holding that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondents separately argued that petitioner's release made the petition moot.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends that the petition be granted as to claims one and three. Applying Rodriguez Vazquez, the recommendation concludes that petitioner was subject to the § 1226 detention regime, not § 1225(b)(2)(A), so respondents' mandatory-detention theory fails. The recommendation also rejects mootness because petitioner's release followed the district court's preliminary-injunction bond hearing rather than ending the controversy.
Because claims one and three provide the requested relief, the recommendation does not reach the remaining claims. It further recommends a permanent injunction restraining respondents from re-detaining petitioner unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation, constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that he is a flight risk or danger justifying custody, with counsel permitted at the hearing.
The recommended injunction expressly does not address detention under different authority, such as 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or § 1231. The document directs the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case only if adopted, and it advises that objections must be filed within seven days under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with failure to object potentially waiving appellate review.
Key Takeaways
- Under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, noncitizens present without admission and apprehended in the interior are governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not the mandatory-detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Release after a court-ordered bond hearing does not moot a § 2241 challenge to the legality of the underlying detention framework.
- When statutory claims supply complete relief, a court need not decide remaining constitutional or APA claims.
- A recommended permanent injunction may require clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with counsel present, before re-detention.
- The recommended relief is limited: it does not govern detention authorized under other statutes such as § 1226(c) or § 1231, and it remains a recommendation subject to district-judge review and timely objections.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the Ninth Circuit's intervening Rodriguez Vazquez framework in the Eastern District of California and shows how interior-apprehension detention cases are being resolved after that decision. It also illustrates the practical limits of habeas relief: the petitioner had already been released, but the magistrate judge still recommended merits relief and prospective protection against re-detention.
Because this is a findings-and-recommendations document rather than a final order, its operative effect depends on review by the assigned district judge and any objections filed within seven days. The narrow wording of the recommended injunction preserves government detention authority under other statutory provisions.