California Case Summaries

(HC)Celestino — ICE detainee must receive a new bond hearing under the correct burden

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
(HC)Celestino
Court
U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
Judge
Jennifer L. Thurston (Joe Biden, 2021)
Date Decided
2026-09-22
Docket No.
1:26-cv-04895
Status
Unreported / Non-Citable
Topics
immigration detention, habeas corpus, bond hearing, due process, burden of proof

Background

Sergio Mata Celestino challenged his renewed immigration detention through a federal habeas petition. An immigration judge had denied a bond redetermination while treating his removal order as final and placing the practical burden on Celestino, even though he timely appealed that removal order.

The government argued that detention was mandatory under expedited-removal provisions, but acknowledged that the case resembled others governed by the discretionary-detention statute. Celestino also had two recent DUI arrests, giving the government a legitimate public-safety concern.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted the petition in part. Because the removal appeal meant the order was not administratively final, and because the immigration judge had not applied the proper burden, continued detention required a constitutionally adequate bond hearing.

The court ordered a hearing within 14 days at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Celestino is a flight risk or danger. If detention is not justified, the immigration judge must consider ability to pay and alternatives to monetary bond. The court declined to order immediate release because the arrest history warranted a neutral custody determination.

Key Takeaways

  • A timely administrative appeal can prevent a removal order from becoming final for detention purposes.
  • At the ordered hearing, the government—not the detainee—bears the clear-and-convincing burden.
  • Bond conditions must account for financial circumstances and less restrictive alternatives.
  • Public-safety allegations may justify a hearing, but not detention under an incorrect legal standard.

Why It Matters

The ruling reinforces a recurring Eastern District distinction between the government’s power to seek detention and its obligation to provide meaningful process. Immigration counsel should document pending appeals, identify any burden-shifting error in earlier custody proceedings, and request concrete notice and participation protections.

Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket

Scroll to Top