Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angel Marcos Perez entered the United States without permission at an unknown time. On September 11, 2026, ICE arrested him in New Jersey during what the record calls a targeted enforcement operation. He has no criminal arrests or convictions and has been detained since the arrest without a bond hearing. Representing himself, he petitioned for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California, naming the warden of the California City Detention Facility, and argued that detention without a bond hearing violates due process.
The government said ICE held him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which allows mandatory detention without a bond hearing. It acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit rejected that position in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), conceded that his detention falls under that decision, and said he could seek a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. The court noted that ICE gave Perez a September 17, 2026 addendum treating him as detained under § 1226(a), but that he was afterward treated as subject to § 1225(b) and never received a hearing despite requesting one. The court read the pro se petition liberally and denied his motion for appointed counsel, finding the interests of justice did not require it at this time.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Perez's detention should have been governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225. Rodriguez Vazquez held that § 1226(a) applies to noncitizens who entered without inspection and are detained by ICE in the interior. Because that court's mandate had not issued, the judge took advisory notice of the ruling and observed that five other circuits agree. Under § 1226(a) and its regulations, a detainee may request an immigration judge bond hearing at any time before a removal order becomes final.
On remedy, the judge declined to settle for a custody redetermination hearing. Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention, and release is the typical remedy, citing Munaf v. Geren and Thuraissigiam. District courts have ordered release where the government wrongly applied § 1225(b). The judge also noted that the Board of Immigration Appeals held in Matter of Yajure Hurtado that immigration judges lack jurisdiction over bond requests under § 1225(b)(2)(A), and the government offered no assurance that an immigration judge could hear Perez's request.
Relying on Feng v. Lyons, the judge found that Perez's due process rights were violated so that a bond hearing now would be constitutionally insufficient, and that release was appropriate because the government had not provided a lawful justification for re-detaining him without a pre-deprivation hearing. The judge recommends granting the petition and ordering immediate release. If the government seeks to re-detain him, it must give at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under § 1226(a), considering bond eligibility. The order does not address detention if Perez becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Key Takeaways
- This is a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, not a final judgment. The assigned district judge must decide whether to adopt them after a three-day objection period.
- The court applied Rodriguez Vazquez to hold that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b), governs interior detention of people who entered without inspection, and the government conceded that the decision controls.
- The recommended remedy is release rather than a belated bond hearing, based on a due process finding and doubt that an immigration judge could hear a bond request from someone held under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Any re-detention would require at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which bond eligibility is considered.
- The judge denied appointed counsel for now and left open the government's authority to detain Perez if he becomes subject to an executable final removal order.
Why It Matters
The order shows how Eastern District of California magistrate judges are applying Rodriguez Vazquez to petitions from people arrested in the interior and held under § 1225(b)(2)(A). It is an unreported district court recommendation with no precedential force. It also rests on a Ninth Circuit decision whose mandate the court said had not yet issued. Its distinctive step is moving from statutory error to a due process finding and recommending release rather than a hearing.
Several matters remain open: whether objections are filed, whether the district judge adopts the recommendations, and how any future final removal order would affect detention, which the court expressly left unaddressed. Because the court relied on the government's concession, its statutory analysis is brief, and its due process conclusion draws on other district court decisions rather than appellate authority.