Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jose Rosario Paredes Salazar, a native of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in January 1998 and resided continuously in the country for twenty-eight years.He married, fathered four children, and serves as the sole provider for his family while his wife battles cancer.In December 2025, his oldest child filed an I-130 petition on his behalf, and he filed an I-485 application to adjust status; both remain pending.On February 19, 2026, Petitioner was convicted under California Penal Code § 415(1) for fighting in a public place, served ten days in jail, and was released.On August 21, 2026, Petitioner attended a scheduled USCIS interview for his I-485 application, whereupon ICE arrested him pursuant to an I-200 administrative warrant.DHS issued a Notice to Appear charging removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and a Notice of Custody Determination mandating detention pending a final administrative decision under 8 U.S.C.§ 1225(b)(2).
Petitioner was transferred to the Golden State Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California, where he remains subject to a final order of removal.On September 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241 challenging his detention as a due process violation, accompanied by a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion to appoint counsel.Respondents opposed, arguing detention was authorized under § 1225(b)(2)(A) but conceding that under Rodriguez Vazquez v.Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir.2026), Petitioner is entitled to a custody redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C.§ 1226(a).The Court decided the matter on the papers without a hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C.§ 1226(a), not the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b)(2).Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez and its own prior decisions in R.P.V.v.Minga Wofford, Velasco v.
Chestnut, and Elder Lopez Lopez v.Christopher Chestnut, the Court found that individuals apprehended in the interior after long-term residence without prior admission are entitled to an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.The Court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot and denied the motion to appoint counsel because the grant of habeas relief obviated the need.The Court ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner a substantive bond hearing under § 1226(a) within 14 days, with 72 hours’ notice, the right to counsel, the right to appear and present evidence on danger and flight risk, a recorded proceeding, and service of the order on the immigration judge and detention facility.The Clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment for Petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- Non-citizens apprehended in the interior after long-term U.S. residence without inspection are entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), per Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
- The government’s concession that § 1226(a) applies was determinative; the Court did not reach the constitutional due process question.
- The Court ordered specific procedural protections for the bond hearing: 72-hour notice, right to counsel, right to appear, right to present evidence, and a recorded hearing.
- The motion to appoint counsel was denied as unnecessary once habeas relief was granted, consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
- The Court relied on a line of Eastern District of California precedents (R.P.V., Velasco, Elder Lopez Lopez) extending Rodriguez Vazquez to similarly situated long-term residents.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the application of Rodriguez Vazquez v.Bostock within the Eastern District of California, confirming that long-term residents arrested in the interior—despite lacking formal admission—are entitled to individualized bond hearings under § 1226(a).The decision adds to a growing body of district court rulings limiting the scope of mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) for non-arriving aliens.
By mandating specific procedural safeguards (notice, counsel, recorded hearing), the Court ensures meaningful compliance.The denial of appointed counsel reflects a pragmatic approach: once the structural relief (a bond hearing) is ordered, the “interests of justice” standard for appointment is not met.The case was closed with judgment for Petitioner, leaving no open issues for further litigation in this forum.