Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jorge Marin Marin, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection at an unknown time and location. He has an outstanding arrest warrant from Mexico, which the Mexican government transmitted to U.S. immigration authorities on August 27, 2026, requesting assistance with apprehension. On or around September 3, 2026, immigration officials arrested Marin Marin pursuant to an administrative warrant and issued a Notice to Appear charging him with removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present without admission or parole. He was placed in standard removal proceedings under INA § 240 (8 U.S.C. § 1229a), not expedited removal.
Marin Marin has been detained at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility since September 3, 2026, without receiving a bond hearing. He filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 18, 2026, challenging the legality of his detention. The district court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Kellison. Respondents filed an answer on October 5, 2026, arguing Marin Marin is lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to seek a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Briefing is complete.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim recommended granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the statutory claim and ordering respondents to provide Marin Marin with a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of adoption of these findings. She concluded that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b), relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), and a consensus of circuit and district courts nationwide.
Because federal regulations provide that noncitizens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention (8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1)), Marin Marin should have received one. She declined to address Marin Marin's alternative Fifth Amendment prolonged detention claim as the statutory claim provides complete relief. She denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The appropriate remedy is a bond hearing—not immediate release—with the burden on petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a danger to the community or a flight risk, given the absence of prior release or a prolonged detention finding.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States who are present without admission fall under the discretionary detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225(b), per Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock (9th Cir. 2026).
- Detainees under § 1226(a) are entitled to a bond hearing at the outset of detention pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1); failure to provide one warrants habeas relief.
- The remedy for denial of a § 1226(a) bond hearing is an order directing the government to provide a hearing, not immediate release, absent prolonged detention or prior release.
- At the initial bond hearing, the detainee bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
- The Court denied the pro se petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice because the petition was granted on the merits.
Why It Matters
This decision applies the Ninth Circuit's binding precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez to a factually straightforward interior apprehension case, reinforcing the nationwide judicial consensus rejecting DHS's interpretation that § 1225(b) authorizes detention without bond hearings for noncitizens who have resided in the United States for extended periods. The ruling clarifies that the statutory distinction between § 1225(b) (applicable to arriving aliens) and § 1226(a) (applicable to those apprehended in the interior) controls the availability of bond hearings. By ordering a bond hearing within 14 days with specific procedural protections (7-day notice, right to counsel), the Court provides a concrete, enforceable remedy that respects the statutory framework while vindicating the detainee's due process interests.
The decision aligns with a growing body of Eastern District of California cases (J.S. v. Wofford, Cresencio Sandoval Alvarez v. Warden) establishing a uniform approach to § 1226(a) bond hearing claims.