Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juanito Boni Hernandez Lopez, a citizen of Guatemala, petitioned the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Represented by counsel, he also moved for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release. According to the petition, as recounted by the court, he accepted voluntary departure and left the United States in 2013, re-entered around October 2018, applied for asylum, and received a work permit. The court noted that immigration authorities therefore knew of his presence in 2018 but did not detain him then.
The court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to explain whether any law or fact distinguished this case from several of its earlier decisions, and to state any objection to a ruling on the petition based on the existing briefing. Respondents conceded in their opposition that petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026). They stated no objection to a merits ruling, but argued that petitioner was entitled only to a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge.
The record respondents submitted included a warrant for petitioner's arrest and an I-213 form stating that he "will be processed as a notice to appear." It did not include the notice to appear itself.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition. It accepted respondents' concession that section 1226(a) governs but rejected the argument that this limited petitioner to a custody redetermination hearing. Relying on its earlier decision in Zurita Navarro v. Warden, the court explained that when the government detains a noncitizen under section 1226(a) and does not comply with that provision's procedures, immediate release is warranted. As the court described Zurita Navarro, release followed the government's failure to arrest the noncitizen after or contemporaneously with issuing a warrant and its failure to issue a notice to appear before or contemporaneously with detention.
Applying that reasoning, the court found that respondents had not provided the actual contemporaneous notice to appear. A warrant and an I-213 form saying petitioner would be processed on a notice to appear were not enough. The court concluded that detention was unlawful because respondents failed to follow section 1226(a) procedures without a sufficient contemporaneous notice to appear, and it cited Villa Canales v. Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Facility (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2026), as a comparable ruling.
The order directs respondents to release petitioner immediately. It enjoins them from re-detaining him for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge, at which the burden is set in accordance with section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. The temporary restraining order motion was denied as moot. The clerk was directed to serve the warden of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, enter judgment for petitioner, and close the case. The order does not address petitioner's asylum application or any removal proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A concession that section 1226(a) governs did not limit the remedy to a custody redetermination hearing; the court ordered release because respondents did not follow that section's procedures.
- Respondents supplied an arrest warrant and an I-213 form stating petitioner would be processed on a notice to appear, but without the actual contemporaneous notice to appear the court found their showing insufficient.
- The ruling rests on the court's own earlier district decisions, Zurita Navarro and Villa Canales; respondents cited Rodriguez Vazquez only for the statutory basis of detention.
- Re-detention is restricted: absent exigent circumstances, respondents must provide notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge, with the burden set under section 1226(a) and its regulations.
- The temporary restraining order motion was denied as moot, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment for petitioner and close the case.
Why It Matters
The order shows how this court treats section 1226(a) habeas cases: a conceded statutory basis for detention does not end the inquiry, and missing paperwork, here the actual notice to appear, can be dispositive. Counsel for detained noncitizens in the Eastern District should check whether the government has produced the contemporaneous notice to appear and the sequence of warrant, arrest, and notice.
This is a short, unreported district court order. It binds only the parties and has no precedential weight, although it reflects a consistent approach by the same court. Its reasoning depends on the record respondents chose to submit, so a different record, including a sufficient notice to appear, could lead to a different outcome. The order does not decide whether other statutory provisions apply or the merits of any removal case.