Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Felix-Angulo, a Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States since about 2013, was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody after completing state custody in June 2026. His recent convictions included vehicle theft under California Vehicle Code section 10851(a). The government charged him as inadmissible for entering without inspection and treated him as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c)(1)(E), a provision expanded by Congress in 2025 to cover certain noncitizens charged with specified offenses.
After roughly four months in ICE custody, Angulo sought habeas corpus—judicial review of allegedly unlawful detention. He requested release or a bond hearing at which an immigration judge could assess whether custody was necessary. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that the statute required detention without bond because the theft conviction and inadmissibility charge satisfied the amended provision.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the petition without prejudice. The court first concluded that the statute applied on its face: Angulo was charged as present without admission, and his vehicle-theft conviction fell within the listed theft-related conduct. That meant he had no statutory right to a bond hearing at the outset of detention.
The court recognized that mandatory detention can eventually become so prolonged that due process requires an individualized bond hearing. Courts evaluating that point consider the total and expected length of detention, whether custody will exceed the criminal sentence, delay attributable to the detainee, the likelihood of removal, and whether detention resembles punishment. But Angulo had offered no developed facts or argument on most of those considerations. His approximately four months in custody remained within the period the Supreme Court had regarded as constitutionally permissible in assessing section 1226(c). On that record, the court could not find detention indefinite or unconstitutionally prolonged. Dismissal without prejudice leaves room for a new challenge if continued detention or a better-developed record changes the balance.
Key Takeaways
- The 2025 expansion of section 1226(c) can require detention without an initial bond hearing when an inadmissibility charge is paired with specified criminal conduct, including theft.
- Mandatory detention is not immune from constitutional review; duration and individual circumstances can eventually trigger due-process protection.
- A prolonged-detention petition needs evidence and argument addressing expected future custody, litigation delay, criminal custody time, defenses to removal, and detention conditions.
- A dismissal without prejudice does not decide that later detention will remain lawful; it reflects an insufficient showing at the time presented.
Why It Matters
The decision gives California immigration practitioners a practical pleading lesson. It is not enough to assert that several months of no-bond detention feels excessive. Counsel should build a record around each duration factor, explain the likely path and timing of removal proceedings, and show why detention has become disproportionate to the government’s regulatory goals.
The ruling also illustrates the immediate reach of Congress’s expanded mandatory-detention language. Criminal defense and immigration counsel should assess how a California offense will interact with both the inadmissibility charge and the new detention categories, while preserving a renewed constitutional challenge if custody continues.
Timing matters. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, counsel can monitor appellate schedules, continuances, actual criminal custody, and changing prospects for removal, then return with evidence rather than speculation. A later petition should distinguish delay caused by legitimate litigation choices from government-caused stagnation and explain why less restrictive supervision would protect the public and assure appearance.