Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Victor Manuel Morales Gonzalez, an immigration detainee held at the Adelanto ICE Detention Center, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 11, 2026, challenging his detention in immigration custody. Respondents filed an answer on August 19, 2026. The petition alleged that he had requested a bond hearing but was denied because the immigration judge concluded he lacked jurisdiction to consider the request on the ground that he was an "arriving alien." He sought a bond determination and immediate release, asserting violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process Clause.
The order describes Morales Gonzalez as a native citizen of El Salvador who has lived in the United States for over two decades. He was granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in 2011 and lawfully entered the United States in 2022 through a grant of advance parole. In March 2026 he was arrested for a felony violation of California Penal Code § 288.4(B); the order expressly notes that he has not been convicted of the offense, and that his DACA status was terminated after the arrest. Immigration authorities took him into custody on May 31, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi granted the petition in part by operative order. Respondents are ordered to provide Morales Gonzalez with an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge no later than October 30, 2026, or release him if the hearing is not timely provided; a reasonable delay requested by the petitioner may extend the deadline. At the hearing, the government must bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community and that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure his future appearance or community safety, and the immigration judge must conduct an individualized assessment of his suitability for bond. Respondents must file a notice of compliance within three days after the hearing occurs.
The court relied on respondents' concession that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), entitled Morales Gonzalez to a bond hearing, and concluded that holding him in immigration custody without a bond hearing violated both his statutory and due-process rights. After surveying procedural and substantive due process standards, the court found that his lawful entry, more than two decades of residence, DACA history, and lawful employment gave him a substantial liberty interest in remaining out of custody. Weighing the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found a high risk of erroneous deprivation because no bond hearing had occurred, while the government's interest in detaining him without a hearing was very low because a bond hearing is routine and easily provided.
The court nevertheless declined to order immediate release. It treated the still-pending criminal charges as changed circumstances that gave immigration authorities a lawful basis to take him into custody, and concluded that a post-deprivation bond hearing at which the government bears the clear-and-convincing burden is sufficient to protect his due process rights in light of the recent arrest. The order therefore requires a hearing—or release if the hearing deadline is missed—not outright release on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- The government conceded that controlling Ninth Circuit authority entitled Morales Gonzalez to a bond hearing despite the immigration judge's earlier jurisdictional ruling that he was an "arriving alien."
- The order places the burden on the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger to the community and that no conditions could reasonably assure his appearance or community safety.
- The immigration judge must conduct an individualized assessment rather than treat the pending criminal charge as an automatic justification for continued detention.
- The court distinguished the lawfulness of the initial custody decision from the unlawfulness of continuing detention without the required bond hearing.
- Immediate release was denied as requested relief, but release is required if respondents fail to provide the ordered hearing by October 30, 2026, subject to a petitioner-requested reasonable delay.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the right to a constitutionally adequate bond hearing from the ultimate question whether continued detention is justified. It does not find Morales Gonzalez dangerous, decide the pending criminal charge, or order his unconditional release; instead it requires the government to justify continued detention under a heightened evidentiary standard at an individualized hearing.
The order also explains why a post-deprivation hearing suffices in these circumstances: the recent arrest and pending charges diminished the asserted liberty interest and constituted changed circumstances supporting custody. Its operative remedy is procedural and time-limited, with compliance reporting and release as the consequence of missing the hearing deadline.