Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Yasmani Figueredo Varona, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order challenging his detention at the California City Detention Center. The court had previously addressed the legal issue raised by claim one of the petition: when a noncitizen has previously been released on parole and is subsequently re-detained pending removal proceedings, the Due Process Clause requires a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proving that the noncitizen is a flight risk or danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence, citing R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, 820 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2026); Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1098 (E.D. Cal. 2025); and Ramazan M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01356-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3145562 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025).
Respondent argued that detention is mandatory under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) but acknowledged that this case fits into the category of cases in which the court has found that the petitioner's parole into the United States is more significant than his or her manner of entry and thus submitted that this case belongs to the category of cases in which the court has ordered a bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered respondents to provide petitioner Yasmani Figueredo Varona (A-Number: 244-204-611) with a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker within fourteen (14) days of the date of the order. Respondents were ordered to immediately provide petitioner with a copy of the order and to provide him with 72 hours' notice before the bond hearing in a language that he can understand.
At that bond hearing, it is respondents' burden to demonstrate that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner may be represented by an attorney at this hearing, and respondents may extend the deadline at petitioner's request so that he can obtain an attorney. If petitioner obtains an attorney, his attorney shall also be given 72 hours' notice before the bond hearing. The neutral decisionmaker must consider petitioner's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release in the event petitioner is determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond. If respondents do not provide petitioner with a bond hearing within fourteen (14) days, then respondents must release him. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case, terminate any pending motions as moot, and enter judgment for petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the habeas petition and ordered a bond hearing within 14 days for an immigration detainee who was previously released on parole and subsequently re-detained.
- At the bond hearing, the government bears the burden of proving flight risk or danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence before a neutral decisionmaker.
- The order includes specific procedural protections: 72 hours' notice in a language the petitioner understands, right to counsel with possible extension of the deadline, consideration of financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release, and automatic release if the hearing is not held within 14 days.
- The respondent acknowledged that the petitioner's parole into the United States is more significant than his manner of entry, effectively conceding that the case falls within the court's precedent requiring a bond hearing.
- The court directed the Clerk to close the case, terminate pending motions as moot, and enter judgment for the petitioner.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the Eastern District of California's consistent line of cases holding that immigration detainees who were previously paroled into the United States and later re-detained are entitled to due process protections including a bond hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The decision applies established district precedent (R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, Ramazan M. v. Andrews) to grant immediate relief without requiring extended briefing or evidentiary proceedings, reflecting the court's view that the legal issue is settled in this jurisdiction.
The detailed procedural requirements for the bond hearing — including language access, right to counsel, consideration of financial circumstances, and automatic release for non-compliance — provide a template for similar cases and underscore the court's commitment to enforcing due process in immigration detention.