Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jefri Alexander Linares-Zuniga, a Guatemalan native proceeding without counsel, entered the United States as a minor on December 25, 2018. He was released that day on an Order of Release on Recognizance that required him not to commit crimes. He alleges he has since built important family and personal ties here. He has been ordered removed, and his appeal is pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. He acknowledges prior criminal-history contacts and that he stopped attending required probation appointments in a matter alleging domestic violence.
He alleges that his September 27, 2025 arrest by Virginia police involved disorderly conduct or a public disturbance. He was transferred to immigration custody on October 3, 2025, and has been detained continuously since. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release.
Respondent opposed, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) is the governing detention authority. Respondent also acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit recently held § 1226 governs petitioner's detention, and stated that petitioner is entitled to seek a custody redetermination before an immigration judge. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued findings and recommendations on October 12, 2026, for review by District Judge Troy L. Nunley.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge reasoned that petitioner was living in the United States when re-detained in 2025 and, as the findings describe it, is not subject to a final order of removal. Relying on Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), she concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs. Section 1226(a) allows discretionary detention but carries extensive procedural protections, including an initial bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The record showed no individualized custody determination in the more than a year since detention began. The findings therefore conclude that petitioner is detained in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The findings further conclude that petitioner's earlier release on his own recognizance gave him a liberty interest in remaining free that the Due Process Clause protects, citing several district court decisions. Under the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, his private interest is substantial and the risk of erroneous deprivation is considerable because no individualized determination appears to have occurred. But the government may have a legitimate detention interest tied to his criminal history, including the incident preceding the Virginia arrest. For that reason the magistrate judge recommends a prompt post-deprivation bond hearing rather than outright release, without deciding whether he should ultimately be freed.
The formal recommendations are that the petition be granted. They also recommend that respondent be ordered to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen days of adoption of the findings, and that judgment be entered for petitioner and the case closed. These are recommendations only. The parties have seven days after service to file objections, and the materials do not show that the district judge has acted.
Key Takeaways
- The findings treat 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A), as the detention authority for a person apprehended in the interior, following Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
- Over a year in immigration detention with no individualized custody determination was found to violate the INA in this recommended ruling.
- The magistrate judge viewed an earlier release on recognizance, followed by years in the community, as creating a protected liberty interest, while noting the government may still have a legitimate interest in detention based on criminal history.
- The recommended remedy is a bond hearing before an immigration judge, not release, so whether petitioner is ultimately freed remains for that hearing.
- The recommendation is not final: objections are due within seven days of service, and the fourteen-day hearing deadline applies only if the district judge adopts it.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's recommendation in an unreported district court matter. It has no binding precedential weight and carries only persuasive value unless and until the district judge adopts it. Its main significance is as an application of the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision, which even the government acknowledged controls the statutory question here.
The ruling also illustrates how Eastern District courts are handling detainees previously released on recognizance who face re-detention after an arrest. It finds a due process interest but tailors the remedy to a bond hearing where the government may have legitimate concerns. The reasoning leaves factual questions about the arrest and probation history for the immigration judge. It does not address the pending Board of Immigration Appeals appeal or what bond standard or outcome should apply.