Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Andy Alex Ore-Falcon, represented by counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 13, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Ore-Falcon entered the United States in 2015 and was detained by immigration authorities on December 16, 2025, while present in the interior of the country. He had not been provided an immigration bond hearing. This was his second habeas petition; the first, Ore-Falcon I (1:26-cv-00181-WBS-EFB), was decided on June 29, 2026, when the court found his detention lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). That decision predated the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), which held that unadmitted aliens present in the interior are subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2). Respondents opposed the petition, arguing it was duplicative of Ore-Falcon I and that Ore-Falcon was subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(A) due to a DEA investigation. During briefing, Ore-Falcon accepted voluntary departure on August 18, 2026, but subsequently appealed the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), rendering the order not administratively final.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot. First, the court held the petition was not duplicative of Ore-Falcon I because it raised a distinct Fifth Amendment due process claim regarding the lack of notice and a hearing, whereas the prior petition alleged only a statutory violation under the INA. Second, the court found Rodriguez Vazquez foreclosed detention under § 1225(b)(2) because Ore-Falcon was detained in the interior. Third, the court agreed that Ore-Falcon was not detained under § 1231 because his removal order was not administratively final due to his pending BIA appeal. Fourth, the court rejected the government's post hoc argument that mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(A) applied, noting respondents provided no evidence Ore-Falcon was convicted of or admitted to a crime involving moral turpitude or controlled substance offense, and the court declined to consider such post hoc rationalizations. Finally, relying on Zurita Navarro v. Warden, the court held that the failure to provide an initial custody determination prior to or contemporaneously with detention, as required by § 1226(a), mandated Ore-Falcon's release. The court ordered his immediate release and enjoined re-detention without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge with the burden set per § 1226(a).
Key Takeaways
- A subsequent habeas petition is not duplicative if it raises a new constitutional due process claim not presented in the prior petition.
- Under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, unadmitted aliens detained in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2) applicable to arriving aliens.
- The government may not rely on post hoc rationalizations—such as a DEA investigation absent a conviction or admission of a qualifying offense—to justify mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(A).
- Failure to provide an initial custody determination prior to or contemporaneously with detention, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), entitles the detainee to habeas relief and release.
- Acceptance of voluntary departure does not moot a habeas petition where the detainee has appealed the removal order to the BIA, rendering the order not administratively final.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the binding effect of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock in the Eastern District of California, clarifying that interior detainees cannot be held under § 1225(b)(2). It underscores the procedural due process requirement of an initial custody determination under § 1226(a) and rejects the government's attempt to retroactively justify mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(A) without evidence of a qualifying conviction or admission. The ruling also confirms that a pending BIA appeal preserves the non-finality of a removal order, preventing detention under § 1231 and preserving habeas jurisdiction. The injunction against re-detention without a pre-detention hearing imposes a clear procedural safeguard for the petitioner.
For practitioners, the order underscores the importance of matching the requested remedy and the governing standard to the case’s exact procedural posture. The result turns on the record described by the court and should not be read beyond the issues actually decided. Counsel should preserve alternative grounds, identify any unresolved questions, and document the facts needed under the applicable burden of proof.