Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Serafin Dorantes Saldivar, a 35-year-old citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States for nearly 15 years, was arrested without a warrant by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on September 29, 2026, while driving home from his son's school in Victorville, California. According to the petition, officers boxed in his vehicle, pointed a gun at him, punched him in the stomach despite his recent kidney-donation surgery, and took him directly to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. He had undergone major surgery on September 4, 2026, to donate a kidney to his son, and required ongoing medication and daily wound care that detention staff allegedly failed to provide.
On October 28, 2026, Saldivar filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his warrantless arrest without a probable-cause flight-risk determination violated 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a) and 1357(a)(2), that his detention violated the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. He also filed a temporary-restraining-order application the same day; Respondents opposed it on October 30, and Saldivar replied on November 4, 2026.
The petition arose against the backdrop of a July 8, 2025, Department of Homeland Security policy that treated interior arrestees as 'applicants for admission' subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) rather than the discretionary framework of § 1226(a). The Bautista final judgment had preclusive effect for Bond Eligible Class members, and the Ninth Circuit held in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock that individuals like Saldivar are properly subject to § 1226(a).
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow granted the habeas petition on November 6, 2026, finding that Saldivar's detention violated due process because he was denied the procedural protections of § 1226(a). The court construed Respondents' failure to respond in substance to the due process claim as a concession under Central District of California Local Civil Rule 7-12 and Ninth Circuit precedent. It found that Saldivar was arrested without a warrant, received no initial custody determination by an immigration officer, and was never afforded a bond hearing before an immigration judge or review by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The court determined that Saldivar should have been processed under § 1226(a), which requires arrest pursuant to a lawful warrant absent an exception, a prompt initial custody determination, and layered review by an immigration judge and the BIA. Although Respondents filed a Form I-200 arrest warrant dated the day of arrest, the court found it appeared to have been issued after the arrest. The Bautista final judgment bound Respondents as to Bond Eligible Class members, and Rodriguez Vasquez confirmed that § 1226(a) applies to someone in Saldivar's position.
The court ordered judgment granting the petition, issuance of the writ, immediate release from custody, return of all confiscated property, an injunction barring re-detention without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the government bears the burden of proving flight risk or danger, and a status report within two business days confirming release. The court expressly declined to address the remaining claims because the due process ruling required relief.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens arrested in the interior without a warrant and denied an initial custody determination may obtain habeas relief when the government detains them under the wrong statutory authority.
- A failure to substantively oppose a due process claim in a habeas petition can be construed as a concession under Local Civil Rule 7-12.
- The Bautista final judgment has preclusive effect against the government in later individual habeas petitions by Bond Eligible Class members.
- Immediate release, rather than remand for a bond hearing, is appropriate where detention was unlawful from inception because the government used the wrong statute and provided no process.
- Serious medical needs and recent surgery can reinforce the conclusion that continued detention is unjustified when required procedures were skipped.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit consensus that the July 2025 policy of reclassifying interior arrestees under § 1225(b) unlawfully strips them of the bond-hearing protections guaranteed by § 1226(a). By ordering release rather than merely a bond hearing, the court treated the government's continued noncompliance with the Bautista judgment as warranting restoration of the status quo ante.
The ruling also shows the practical effect of the government's litigation posture: failing to meaningfully oppose the due process claim effectively conceded the violation. For practitioners, it underscores that § 1226(a) claims in habeas petitions can support immediate release when detention rests on the wrong statutory framework and no process was provided.