Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Eduardo Luis B.V., a federal immigration detainee held at Mesa Verde Detention Center, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 28, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the petition be granted, which were served on all parties with notice that objections were due within seven days. Neither party filed objections.
The magistrate judge issued additional findings and recommendations on October 14, 2026, recommending that the respondent's motion to dissolve the court's "no-transfer" order be granted, but that the respondent's motion to dismiss be denied. Again, neither party filed objections to these findings and recommendations. The district court reviewed the record de novo as to conclusions of law and presumed the magistrate judge's factual findings correct under Ninth Circuit precedent. The court cited Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979), for the presumption of correctness of factual findings, and Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School District, 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), for de novo review of conclusions of law.
The Court’s Holding
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 22, 24) in full. The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) and ordered the respondent to provide the petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e) within fourteen days of the order, with at least seven days' advance notice to the petitioner and counsel. Critically, the court ordered that at the bond hearing, the petitioner's Form I-918A application must be considered.
The court denied the respondent's motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 6, 23) and denied the petitioner's motion to expedite decision (ECF No. 17) as moot. The court granted the respondent's motion to lift the no-transfer order. The respondent was ordered to file a notice certifying compliance within three court days from the date of the bond hearing, and if the petitioner is granted release on bond, the respondent must return all of the petitioner's documents and possessions at the time of release.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief requiring a bond hearing for an immigration detainee, with specific instruction that the petitioner's Form I-918A (U visa certification) application be considered at that hearing.
- The respondent must provide at least seven days' advance notice of the bond hearing and file a compliance notice within three court days after the hearing occurs.
- If the petitioner is released on bond, the respondent must return all documents and possessions at the time of release.
- The court denied the government's motions to dismiss the habeas petition, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation that the petition has merit.
- The court lifted its prior no-transfer order at the respondent's request, allowing for potential transfer of the petitioner.
Why It Matters
This order enforces the right of an immigration detainee to an individualized bond hearing where pending U visa certification (Form I-918A) must be considered, reinforcing due process protections in prolonged detention cases. The court's specific directives regarding notice, compliance certification, and return of property provide a clear enforcement framework.
The adoption of unopposed magistrate judge recommendations after de novo review illustrates the procedural posture where the government did not contest the legal basis for the bond hearing requirement. The order also demonstrates the district court's willingness to impose concrete deadlines and compliance mechanisms to ensure that habeas relief is meaningful rather than merely declaratory.