Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alejandro Rivera Cervantes had been in immigration custody since April 2026 when he sought habeas relief. He requested release or a custody-redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). An immigration judge had already refused to consider bond, relying on the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which treated certain noncitizens present without admission as subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).
The government nevertheless admitted that Rivera Cervantes belonged to the bond-eligible class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. The declaratory judgment in that case remained effective within the Central District of California and said class members were governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). The Ninth Circuit subsequently endorsed that statutory interpretation in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock. The government argued that the proper remedy was another bond hearing rather than release.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts granted the writ and ordered immediate release under reasonable supervision conditions. Rivera Cervantes was entitled to bond consideration because he was a Maldonado Bautista class member detained within the geographic area where that judgment remained in force. The court emphasized that a declaratory judgment is binding, not advisory, and government parties must comply with it even while related appellate proceedings continue.
A new bond order, however, would not provide effective relief. The Ninth Circuit had left the class judgment in force locally while separately staying the order that vacated Matter of Yajure Hurtado. That meant the immigration judge faced opposing commands: the federal judgment and later Ninth Circuit reasoning required § 1226(a) bond consideration, while the still-operative Board precedent directed immigration judges to find they lacked jurisdiction. The same immigration judge had already chosen the Board’s rule. Because ordering another hearing would likely reproduce the same jurisdictional denial, immediate release was the only way to end the unlawful detention and provide complete relief. The government had to confirm release within two court days.
Key Takeaways
- Members of the Maldonado Bautista class detained in the Central District remain entitled to § 1226(a) bond consideration under the unstayed declaratory judgment described in this order.
- Federal declaratory judgments bind government defendants and cannot be treated as nonbinding guidance by immigration adjudicators.
- A district court may order release when a nominal bond-hearing remedy would be futile because the immigration judge has already applied contrary administrative authority.
- Remedial evidence matters: the prior written refusal to exercise bond jurisdiction showed why simply directing another hearing would not supply complete relief.
Why It Matters
The ruling is especially relevant to California practitioners confronting conflicting judicial and administrative directives. A request for release should show not merely that the client is bond-eligible, but why the available administrative hearing will fail to honor that right. Prior custody rulings, the immigration judge’s stated view of jurisdiction, and the precise scope of stays or class judgments can determine whether a federal court orders a hearing or release.
The case also illustrates why counsel must parse appellate stay language carefully. A stay affecting one part of a lower-court order does not necessarily suspend every form of relief or every geographic application of the judgment. Here, the judgment expressly remained operative inside the Central District even though related vacatur relief was stayed. That distinction changed the remedy from another hearing to immediate release.