Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Daniel Centeno-Lopez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by immigration authorities. The court’s detailed reasoning for granting relief was set out in an earlier order (Dkt. No. 5); this follow-up order memorializes the court’s ruling granting the petition and specifying the relief.
The order directed that Centeno-Lopez be released from custody within days and set out detailed, ongoing conditions governing any attempt by immigration authorities to redetain him while his removal proceedings continue.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition and ordered respondents to release Centeno-Lopez by a date certain, with an affidavit confirming release due the next business day. Critically, the court did not merely order a one-time release — it enjoined the government from redetaining him during the pendency of his removal proceedings unless he first receives an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge.
At that hearing, following the Ninth Circuit’s framework in Hernandez v. Sessions, the government must bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Centeno-Lopez is either a danger to the community or such a flight risk that no amount of bond or alternative release conditions would ensure his future appearance. The immigration judge must also consider Centeno-Lopez’s financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release, such as reporting requirements or electronic monitoring, before setting any bond amount. The court specifically barred the immigration judge from denying bond on the theory that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) mandates detention or that Board of Immigration Appeals precedent strips the judge of jurisdiction to decide bond — both legal bases the government or immigration judges sometimes invoke to avoid individualized bond determinations. The court further required a declaration of compliance and barred redetention until 48 hours after that declaration is filed, and vacated an upcoming hearing before closing the case.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas grant releasing an immigration detainee can include forward-looking injunctive conditions, not just a one-time release — barring redetention unless and until specific due-process protections are satisfied.
- Under Hernandez v. Sessions, when a bond hearing is required, the government — not the detainee — bears the burden of proving danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
- Immigration judges must consider a detainee’s financial circumstances and realistic alternatives to cash bond before setting a bond amount.
- Courts in this district continue to reject attempts to treat 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as foreclosing individualized bond hearings or divesting immigration judges of jurisdiction to decide bond.
Why It Matters
For immigration practitioners litigating detention conditions in the Southern District of California, this order is a template for the kind of structural relief available in a successful habeas petition: release conditioned on future due-process safeguards, not just a one-time order to let a client go. It reinforces that the government continues to bear a heavy burden before it can detain someone pending removal proceedings, and that neither a cross-reference to the mandatory-detention provisions of Section 1225(b) nor BIA precedent on jurisdiction will excuse the government from that burden in this district.