Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jessica Philius filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court had issued an order to show cause, respondents filed a response, and Philius did not file a traverse. According to the petition's allegations recounted by the court, she is a native of Haiti who entered the United States without inspection in May 2024 after fleeing because she feared being killed. She also alleged that she never attended school and is not literate.
Philius alleged that she lived in Florida and was arrested in Broward County on August 23, 2025, following a domestic dispute, on misdemeanor battery charges, but that no charges were filed. She was taken into immigration custody the next day and had remained detained since then, at the time of the order at Otay Mesa Detention Center. The court observed that her detention had lasted more than fourteen months.
Philius argued that she was not mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 because she had been detained in the interior of the country and was entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). She also relied on the Banda line of cases concerning prolonged detention under § 1225. Respondents instead asserted mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(E), based on her battery arrest, but conceded that the length of her detention entitled her to a bond hearing under Lopez v. Garland.
The Court’s Holding
The court identified shortcomings in both sides' statutory positions. Philius appeared to place her detention under § 1226(a) while invoking Banda authorities addressing prolonged detention under § 1225, without citing cases applying that framework to § 1226(a). Respondents did not explain how her arrest or charge satisfied § 1226(c)(1)(E), which the court described as requiring specified offenses or a crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury. Because Philius filed no traverse, she had not answered respondents' argument that § 1226(c) applied.
Those problems did not prevent relief because both parties appeared to agree on a bond hearing with the same protections. Although Lopez concerned § 1226(c) and Banda concerned § 1225, the court explained that Lopez extensively cited Banda, adopted a similar test with overlapping factors, and reached similar burdens of proof and hearing requirements. Given the parties' positions and abbreviated briefing, the court expressly declined to decide which statutory provision governed Philius's detention and ordered a hearing under Banda/Lopez.
The order grants the petition and requires a constitutionally adequate, individualized bond determination within fourteen days unless Philius requests a continuance. The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is dangerous or a flight risk if released. The immigration judge must consider alternative release conditions and her ability to pay if bond is appropriate, and the government must provide a complete hearing record to Philius and counsel. A compliance notice, hearing results, and a copy of the bond order are due within five days after the hearing; the Clerk was ordered to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief without resolving the parties' disagreement over whether § 1225, § 1226(a), or § 1226(c) governed the detention.
- The shared Banda/Lopez protections supplied the basis for relief despite the different statutory settings of those authorities.
- The government bears the burden at the hearing and must establish danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
- The immigration judge must consider alternatives to bond and Philius's ability to pay when determining that bond is appropriate.
- The order sets deadlines for the hearing and compliance filing but does not itself order Philius released or fix a bond amount.
Why It Matters
The decision provides concrete procedural relief in a prolonged immigration detention case while leaving the governing detention statute unresolved. Its practical importance lies in the required individualized hearing, the government's heightened burden, and the express consideration of release alternatives and ability to pay, rather than in a new ruling on the scope of mandatory detention.
The ruling also reflects the limited record before the court: respondents had conceded entitlement to a hearing based on detention length, and Philius had not filed a traverse. The court's reasoning therefore rests on the parties' positions and the overlap between Banda and Lopez, not a broader determination that every similarly situated detainee is covered by the same statutory framework.