Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Erik Ronaldo Osorto Rivera, a noncitizen who entered the United States as a minor in 2013, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 3, 2026, in Pompano Beach, Florida, while returning home from his job as a mechanic. He has a three-year-old daughter who is a U.S. citizen and no criminal history. After his arrest, ICE transferred him from Florida to Texas and then to California without providing him a bond hearing. He filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his detention without a hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
On March 23, 2026, the day he filed his petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order, the district court directed the government to respond and identify any factual or legal features distinguishing the case from prior rulings. The government argued the next day that Osorto Rivera was an 'applicant for admission' detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), but acknowledged that the case did not appear to present facts or legal arguments distinguishing it substantively from the cases identified by the district court. On March 25, 2026, the district court converted the TRO motion into a preliminary injunction motion, granted it, ordered his immediate release, and enjoined re-detention absent exigent circumstances without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge at which the government would bear a clear-and-convincing burden. He was released on his own recognizance on March 28, 2026, and the petition and the government's motion to dismiss non-custodian respondents were referred to the assigned magistrate judge.
The Court’s Holding
After briefing closed, the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), rejecting the government's position: noncitizens present without admission and apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). Because the record had not changed since the preliminary injunction ruling, the magistrate judge recommended granting the habeas petition on both claims — that Osorto Rivera was detained under the wrong statutory authority and that detaining him without a hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
The magistrate judge also recommended denying the motion to dismiss all respondents other than the warden of the California City Correctional Center, the immediate custodian. Citing Osoria v. Warden of the California City Detention Center, the court reasoned that non-custodian respondents — the ICE Los Angeles Field Office Director, the ICE Acting Director, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General — were properly joined so an injunction against future re-detention could be enforced. The court recommended a permanent injunction barring re-detention unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with counsel permitted, that Osorto Rivera is a flight risk or danger to the community; the recommendation does not address detention under other authority such as § 1226(c) or § 1231.
The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with seven days to file written objections and a warning that failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's eventual order.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the § 2241 petition because the petitioner, apprehended in the interior of the United States, was subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2).
- The recommendation rested on the Ninth Circuit's intervening Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, which rejected the 'applicant for admission' theory for interior-apprehended noncitizens.
- Detaining the petitioner without any bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights under the court's recommendation.
- The court recommended denying dismissal of non-custodian respondents because their joinder was necessary to enjoin future re-detention.
- The recommended permanent injunction bars re-detention absent a pre-deprivation bond hearing at which the government must prove flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
The recommendation shows the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision being applied in the Eastern District of California to habeas petitions challenging ICE detention of interior-apprehended noncitizens without bond hearings under § 1225(b)(2). Treating the circuit ruling as dispositive and noting the government's acknowledgment that nothing distinguished the case from earlier adverse decisions, the court signaled that similarly situated detainees are likely to prevail on statutory and constitutional grounds.
The recommendation is also notable for respondent joinder and remedial scope: keeping high-level officials in the case and recommending a forward-looking permanent injunction with a clear-and-convincing burden at a pre-deprivation hearing, while carving out detention authorized under other statutes such as § 1226(c) and § 1231.