Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Morillo Gonzalez, an immigration detainee, petitioned for habeas relief after the government failed to provide the bond hearing required for detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court ordered a preliminary response.
After Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the government conceded that binding Ninth Circuit precedent established a statutory right to a bond hearing. The remaining question was remedy for the lengthy delay.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that delay in providing the mandated hearing violated due process and justified immediate release. It granted habeas relief, ordered release without new restrictions, required a compliance report, entered judgment, and closed the case.
Any future re-detention while § 1226(a) applies requires at least seven days’ notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The order did not address custody after an executable final removal order.
Key Takeaways
- Conceding a future bond hearing does not cure a lengthy past denial of process.
- Immediate release may be the remedy for prolonged noncompliance.
- New release restrictions require a future custody determination.
- Pre-deprivation process applies before renewed § 1226(a) detention.
Why It Matters
The decision gives habeas counsel support for seeking release, rather than merely a delayed hearing, when the government has long withheld mandatory custody review.
It also limits the ruling to discretionary pre-removal detention, preserving separate questions that could arise after a removal order becomes executable.