Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ryan Amilkar Perez Bello, formerly a federal immigration detainee represented by counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Eastern District of California granted the petition on April 22, 2026, ordered respondents to release him immediately, and entered judgment in his favor. The recommendation also states that he obtained an injunction against illegal re-detention. He filed his motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act on June 24, 2026; respondents opposed, and he replied.
Respondents separately moved on July 15, 2026 to hold the fee motion in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's resolution of Montoya Palacios v. Liggins, and Perez Bello opposed that request. The October 19, 2026 findings and recommendations address both motions. They are recommendations to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), not a final fee judgment. The document allows fourteen days after service for written objections, with responses due within fourteen days after service of objections, and warns that failure to object may waive appellate rights.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson recommended denying the stay. Applying the Ninth Circuit's Lockyer factors, he reasoned that delay would prevent compensation for counsel who might be entitled to fees and could chill representation of immigration habeas petitioners. Respondents identified no hardship or inequity from deciding the motion, while the orderly course of justice favored finality. The recommendation therefore did not wait for the Supreme Court's action in Montoya Palacios.
The recommendation next rejected respondents' argument that habeas proceedings are not civil actions under the EAJA. Relying on Schlanger v. Seamans, the statute's coverage of 'any civil action' other than cases sounding in tort, Ninth Circuit authority, and recent Third and Tenth Circuit decisions, Judge Peterson concluded that the EAJA includes habeas challenges to immigration detention. Perez Bello was the prevailing party because the litigation produced a writ securing his release and an injunction against illegal re-detention, a point respondents did not contest.
The government did not carry its burden to show substantial justification. Its reliance on Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Avila v. Bondi did not address Perez Bello's due process theory: he had been released into the United States on conditions and thereby obtained a liberty interest. The recommendation cites the strong weight of authority rejecting mandatory detention for people in his position and later circuit decisions identifying 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than § 1225(b), as the proper detention authority. It also found no justification shown for ICE's re-detention of him after more than three years on release when he reported for an appointment, or for EOIR's denial of a bond hearing. Respondents made no special-circumstances argument and did not dispute the requested amount.
Key Takeaways
- The recommended disposition is denial of respondents' stay motion and a fee award of $8,227.49, but the assigned district judge must still act on the findings and recommendations.
- The recommendation treats immigration-detention habeas proceedings as civil actions eligible for EAJA fees, while recognizing that the government bears the burden of proving substantial justification and special circumstances.
- The government's cited mandatory-detention decisions did not answer the distinct due process claim arising from release on conditions and the resulting liberty interest.
- The fee calculation covers 26.3 attorney hours at $258.46, 11.4 paralegal hours at $124, and a $5 filing fee, which the magistrate judge found reasonable by comparison with similar immigration habeas cases.
- The award is recommended to be payable to Perez Bello, with direct payment to counsel if the Department of the Treasury determines that he does not owe a federal debt.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the EAJA not only to the positions taken in court but also to the underlying agency conduct, including re-detention and the failure to provide a bond hearing. That matters because a litigation argument based on purportedly unsettled detention law did not, by itself, address the actions the habeas petition sought to redress. The analysis also distinguishes mandatory-detention precedent from the due process consequences of re-detaining someone who had been released on conditions.
The fee discussion provides a concrete reasonableness benchmark for a relatively small immigration habeas case, comparing the requested hours and amount with other awards rather than treating the absence of a dispute as the sole basis for approval. A footnote states that, because the mandate had not yet issued in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the court took advisory notice of that ruling under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41. The document does not report objections, adoption by the district judge, or entry of a final fee award.