Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jose Luis Fernandez Gomez, a Mexican citizen, has been held at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center since September 25, 2026. Immigration officers looking for a different man with the same name arrested him in Riverside. According to the government's Form I-213, a Fugitive Operations Team was seeking a person with an outstanding removal order. Officers stopped Petitioner's truck, he said he had no documents allowing him to remain, and at a sub-office officers concluded he was not the target. ICE nonetheless served him with a Notice to Appear charging him as present without admission or parole.
A Form I-200 warrant naming Petitioner bears a 0630 notation, although two of its checked bases describe events the I-213 places later that morning. At 11:14 a.m. an officer issued a Form I-286 ordering detention, and Petitioner checked the box requesting immigration judge review. Immigration court records, of which the court took judicial notice, show an IJ dismissed the removal proceedings on October 21, 2026, with any appeal due November 20, 2026. The record does not show whether a custody hearing was scheduled or held. Petitioner sought release or a prompt hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondents agreed that § 1226(a) governs and that a bond hearing is available, but argued the petition was unexhausted and relief should be limited to that hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition in part, as to Count Four only, and denied Counts One through Three. It treated exhaustion as prudential and excused it to the extent it applied, because Petitioner used the form's invitation to request IJ review and the relief ordered is the administrative hearing itself. On Count One, the court made no finding on the warrant's validity and did not decide whether the initial seizure was lawful. Relying on Bilokumsky and Lopez-Mendoza, it reasoned that defects in the original arrest do not require discharge where sufficient ground for present detention appears. Here, Petitioner acknowledges entering without inspection, a Notice to Appear began removal proceedings, and the IJ's dismissal is not final while appeal time remains. Section 1226(a) authorizes detention pending a removal decision, and ICE made a custody determination on the arrest date. Count Two failed because the I-286 shows a supervisory officer ordered detention about three hours after arrest, and the ordered hearing supplies a neutral determination.
On Count Three, the court distinguished its own decision in Ren v. Mullin, where the petitioner had been admitted and left at liberty and the arresting officer noted no flight or danger concern. Under Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, § 1226(a)'s procedures, including an IJ hearing at which the detainee bears the burden by a preponderance, satisfy due process, and the Mathews factors confirmed that a prompt hearing addresses the remaining risk. On Count Four, Respondents conceded Petitioner appears entitled to a bond hearing, he asked for review on the day of arrest, and the record showed none a month later. The dismissal does not make review unnecessary, since an IJ may redetermine custody before a final order.
The court ordered a hearing within seven days. If none is held on the merits by then, Respondents must release Petitioner that day, subject to lawful conditions. Petitioner must show by a preponderance that he is neither a flight risk nor a danger, and his request for a clear-and-convincing burden on the government was denied. Any monetary bond requires consideration of his finances and alternative conditions. The hearing and release provisions do not apply if Respondents show within three court days that an IJ already ruled on a post-arrest custody request. If Respondents claim detention under authority other than § 1226(a), they must say so in the same period, which suspends the deadlines. Respondents must file a status report, and the court retained jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A detainee held under § 1226(a) may obtain federal habeas relief in the form of a prompt IJ custody hearing when the record shows none has occurred despite a request.
- Defects in an initial arrest or warrant did not require release here because independent grounds supported present detention, and the court left the arrest's lawfulness undecided.
- In this order, due process did not require a pre-deprivation hearing or shift to the government a clear-and-convincing burden at the bond hearing.
- A non-final IJ dismissal of removal proceedings does not make a custody hearing unnecessary while the appeal period remains open.
- Prudential exhaustion was excused where the petitioner had already requested IJ review and the court ordered only that hearing.
Why It Matters
This is a single district-court order by a magistrate judge. It is not a published precedent, but it shows how courts in the Central District apply Rodriguez Diaz and Rodriguez Vazquez to a mistaken-target arrest. Its remedy is a hearing with a release backstop, not unconditional release, and the court pointedly distinguished its own decisions where release was ordered or a protected liberty interest was found.
Important questions remain open. The court did not decide whether the warrant and seizure were lawful. It did not decide whether the October 21 dismissal bears on flight risk or danger, which it left to the IJ. And it did not decide the legality of any detention authority other than § 1226(a), which it would address only if Respondents invoke one.