Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Junior Eduardo Bustamante Martinez, an immigration detainee identified in the caption by registration number A# 244-690-670, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, where the case was docketed as No. 1:26-cv-08849-DJC-CSK. Acting under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the court directed the respondents, the Warden of the California City Immigration Processing Center, to file a return showing cause why the court should not grant the writ and order his release based on an alleged violation of his due process rights. In that return, the respondents argued that his prior parole into the country subjected him to mandatory detention.
The court noted that it had previously addressed the legal issues raised in the petition, citing Garcia Mariagua v. Chestnut, Ortega v. Noem, Lopez v. Lyons, M.B. v. Noem, and Oli v. Andrews. The order therefore grants relief for the reasons stated in those prior decisions rather than developing an extended independent analysis in this document, while adding case-specific observations about the liberty interest created by the government's permission to remain and the need for a prompt post-deprivation hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the respondents' contention that prior parole made mandatory detention controlling. It explained that the argument ignores the fact that the respondents permitted Bustamante Martinez to remain in the country, thereby creating a liberty interest. The court further stated that his criminal history justifies providing him with a prompt post-deprivation hearing, citing J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, 2025 WL 2938808, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025).
Accordingly, the court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for the reasons stated in its prior orders. It ordered the respondents, within fourteen days of the order, to afford Bustamante Martinez a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. At that hearing, the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and he must be allowed to have counsel present. If the hearing is not provided within the fourteen-day period, the respondents are ordered to immediately release him from custody.
The order further directs the respondents to file a status report within five days of the bond hearing confirming that it was conducted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case and enter judgment for the petitioner, and the order states that it resolves all pending motions. The relief is therefore process-based and conditional: it requires a hearing and a government justification for continued detention, and it directs release only if the hearing deadline is missed.
Key Takeaways
- Prior parole did not defeat the due process claim because the court found that the government's permission for Bustamante Martinez to remain in the country created a liberty interest.
- The habeas petition was granted, and the respondents must provide a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within fourteen days of the order.
- At the hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
- He must be allowed to have counsel present, and if no hearing is held within fourteen days, the respondents must immediately release him from custody.
- The clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment for the petitioner, a status report is due within five days of the hearing, and the order resolves all pending motions.
Why It Matters
This order applies the court's earlier immigration-detention decisions to a new petitioner, reinforcing that mandatory detention cannot rest on prior parole where the government permitted the noncitizen to remain in the country. It connects the liberty interest to that permission and treats criminal history as a reason for a prompt post-deprivation hearing rather than as a substitute for individualized process.
The practical remedy is deadline-driven: a bond hearing with counsel and a heightened government burden within fourteen days, followed by immediate release if the hearing is not held on time. Because the order expressly incorporates the reasoning of the court's prior decisions, those cited rulings supply the fuller legal framework behind this result, and the case is closed with judgment entered for the petitioner.