Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eustacio Abad Jimenez Romano, a citizen of Mexico who last entered the United States on or about October 2006 and has lived here for 20 years, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 22, 2026, while detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. He has been detained at that facility since April 8, 2026, and immigration authorities arrested him on that same date. The petition alleged violations of Immigration and Nationality Act Sections 1226(a) and 1357(a)(2), as well as Fifth Amendment due process violations, and sought immediate release or a new custody hearing. Respondents filed an answer on October 29, 2026, and petitioner filed a reply on November 2, 2026.
Petitioner has three children, all United States citizens, and filed an application for cancellation and adjustment of status on September 15, 2026. His removal proceedings remained pending with an individual hearing scheduled for November 30, 2026. According to the petition, he had a criminal history but no convictions, though the court noted in a footnote that the two pages of Form I-213 attached to the petition did not indicate any criminal history.
On August 4, 2026, an immigration judge denied bond, finding that petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish that he is not a flight risk. Petitioner did not appeal that decision. He was scheduled for a Rodriguez hearing on October 15, 2026, but withdrew the request. In their response to the habeas petition, respondents acknowledged that petitioner appeared entitled to a bond hearing under Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2015).
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver granted the petition in part and denied it in part. The court denied the petition to the extent it sought release based on claims that petitioner's arrest violated Sections 1226(a) and 1357(a)(2) and due process. Citing decisions from the Central District of California and the Western District of Washington, the court explained that the remedy for an unlawful arrest is suppression of evidence obtained from it, not release from custody through habeas corpus.
The court agreed with petitioner that his detention violated due process because the immigration court applied the incorrect legal standard at his bond hearing. Under Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2024), the government should bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. Because the burden was incorrectly placed on petitioner, the court found the misapplication constituted an abuse of discretion and a due process violation.
The court declined to require exhaustion of administrative remedies after respondents noted that petitioner had not exhausted his remedies by appealing the immigration court's bond order. It reasoned that the immigration court's abuse of discretion was apparent from the face of the bond order, and requiring an administrative appeal would prolong detention and cause irreparable harm. Although recognizing flexibility in fashioning habeas relief, the court rejected immediate release because this appears to be petitioner's initial detention by immigration authorities and thus he has not been assessed previously for flight risk or danger. The court ordered respondents to provide a new bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven days of the entry of judgment, with the government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detention of petitioner is necessary because petitioner is an unacceptable danger to the community or an unacceptable risk of flight. A footnote stated that petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to any different or additional relief.
Key Takeaways
- Placing the burden of proof on an immigration detainee at a bond hearing, rather than requiring the government to justify detention by clear and convincing evidence, constitutes an abuse of discretion and a due process violation.
- A district court may waive exhaustion of administrative remedies when the immigration court's error is apparent from the face of the bond order and requiring an appeal would prolong detention and cause irreparable harm.
- The appropriate remedy for an allegedly unlawful arrest is generally suppression of evidence, not release from custody through a habeas petition.
- A new bond hearing, rather than immediate release, may be the appropriate habeas remedy when the detainee has not previously received a constitutionally adequate assessment of flight risk or dangerousness.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Ninth Circuit's burden-of-proof framework for immigration bond hearings and reinforces that immigration judges must require the government to establish the necessity of detention by clear and convincing evidence. It also illustrates the circumstances under which district courts will excuse a detainee's failure to pursue an administrative appeal before seeking habeas relief.
By distinguishing between remedies for an allegedly unlawful arrest and remedies for a constitutionally inadequate bond hearing, the decision clarifies the limited role of habeas corpus in addressing arrest-related statutory violations while providing a concrete mechanism to correct due process errors in custody determinations.