Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rogelio Moreno Reyes, a thirty-year-old Mexican citizen who says he entered without inspection in 2022, was arrested by ICE on April 16, 2026, in Reedley, California, after a multi-agency search. An unsworn May 1 memorandum reports that he told agents he was a cartel enforcer wanted in Mexico for homicide. Respondents also filed an untranslated Michoacán document they describe as an arrest warrant. His Form I-213 shows no U.S. criminal arrests or convictions, and the Notice to Appear charged only presence without admission. He has had no bond hearing.
He filed a pro se habeas petition on April 28, 2026, and appointed counsel filed a first amended petition raising statutory and due process claims. Respondents argued he is mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A) because his statements show inadmissibility for drug trafficking under § 1182(a)(2)(C), or alternatively under § 1225(b)(2). They did not respond to the amended petition. After the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the matter was referred to a magistrate judge. This document is findings and recommendations to District Judge Troy L. Nunley, with objections due in seven days. It is not a final order.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends rejecting the § 1225(b)(2) theory. Rodriguez Vazquez holds that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior fall under § 1226, and Moreno Reyes was arrested at home more than three years after his reported entry. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question on October 1, 2026, but Rodriguez Vazquez binds until it rules otherwise. The judge did not decide whether § 1226(c)(1)(A) applies. Whether a 'reason to believe' ground covers inadmissibility 'by reason of having committed' an offense, and whether an unsworn summary of his alleged statements is sufficient evidence, were called substantial and unresolved. The analysis assumes mandatory detention applies and treats the cartel allegations as unproven. The judge also declined to require a Joseph hearing first, finding prudential exhaustion excused for the due process claim.
Applying Mathews v. Eldridge, the judge finds that detention of more than six months, likely about seven by the time of ruling, without any hearing has become unreasonably prolonged. Removal proceedings remain pending, nothing shows the petitioner caused delay, and the risk of error is substantial because detention rests on an unsworn summary and an untranslated document. The government's interest is weighty, but a hearing preserves it because an immigration judge may still deny bond. The judge noted that six months is near the low end of periods other district courts have found unreasonable, and declined to hold the case for a pending certiorari petition on prolonged § 1226(c) detention.
The recommended relief is a declaration that detention is governed by § 1226. Within fourteen days of adoption, Respondents would provide an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. The government would bear a clear-and-convincing burden on flight risk or danger, and the judge would consider ability to pay and alternatives. If the government fails, release on conditions follows, with a status report seven days after the hearing. Immediate release would be denied, the TRO and preliminary injunction request denied as moot, and the automatic-stay and re-detention requests denied as premature. The remaining statutory claims would be denied without prejudice, and the non-transfer order stays in effect.
Key Takeaways
- Under Rodriguez Vazquez, a noncitizen who entered without admission and is arrested in the interior falls under § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), in the Ninth Circuit.
- Even if mandatory detention under § 1226(c) applies, more than six months without any individualized hearing can support an as-applied due process claim under Mathews.
- Where no hearing has ever been held, the recommended standard puts the burden on the government by clear and convincing evidence, distinguishing Rodriguez Diaz, which involved a detainee who had already received a hearing.
- Grave but unadjudicated allegations support a hearing rather than release: the recommended remedy is process, not freedom.
Why It Matters
This is a recommendation, not a ruling, and the district judge may adopt, modify or reject it. It applies a Mathews approach that the Ninth Circuit has not adopted for § 1226(c) and relies largely on district decisions, so its precedential weight is limited.
Open issues include whether § 1182(a)(2)(C) can trigger § 1226(c)(1)(A), how reliable the alleged statements are, and the pending Supreme Court matters on § 1225(b)(2) and prolonged § 1226(c) detention.