Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cristian Sanchez-Matute, a Honduran citizen proceeding without counsel, petitioned the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his detention by immigration authorities. Government records cited in the findings say he entered the United States on or about August 23, 2021, without being admitted or paroled. His verified petition says an asylum application was denied, and respondents did not dispute that. The magistrate judge noted a discrepancy in the Form I-213 about the entry date and whether he was admitted with or without inspection. The judge found it did not affect the outcome.
On July 27, 2026, police in Irving, Texas arrested him on a misdemeanor driving-while-intoxicated charge, and he was charged on August 4, 2026. The record does not show whether that charge is still pending. Custody was transferred to ICE on August 8, 2026, and he was issued a Notice to Appear in standard removal proceedings under INA section 240. The notice charged him as present without being admitted or paroled. He has remained in ICE detention since then and states that he has had no bond hearing.
He filed the petition on September 8, 2026, and the case was referred to the magistrate judge. On September 20, 2026, respondent filed a reply, citing Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock. The reply stated that petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is eligible for a bond hearing, and that respondents do not oppose the court ordering one. Petitioner did not respond, and briefing was complete.
The Court’s Holding
This is a set of findings and recommendations, not a final order. Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim recommends that the district judge grant the petition on the statutory claim. The judge construed the pro se petition liberally as raising a claim under the Immigration and Nationality Act and found no prejudice to respondents from that construction. Relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2026), the judge noted that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). The findings also cite decisions from other circuits and district courts. The judge found petitioner is detained under § 1226(a). Because regulations give § 1226(a) detainees bond hearings at the outset of detention, citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, he should have received one.
On remedy, the judge noted that respondents did not argue petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community. The judge concluded that immediate release, rather than only a bond hearing, is the appropriate remedy, pointing to earlier Eastern District decisions releasing people held after misdemeanor drunk-driving matters. The recommended order would require release with a copy of the release order, and return of any personal documents and possessions the government holds. It would enjoin re-detention unless the government shows, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that he is a flight risk or danger. It would also require a status report within seven days after adoption and direct the clerk to enter judgment and close the case. The injunction does not reach detention under other authority, such as § 1226(c) or § 1231.
Because the statutory ground was enough, the findings do not address petitioner's remaining claims, including any due process theory. Parties have seven days to file objections, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- The findings treat Rodriguez Vasquez as governing people present without admission who are arrested in the interior. Such detainees fall under § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- A § 1226(a) detainee is entitled to a bond hearing at the outset of detention, and the magistrate judge concluded petitioner should have received one.
- The recommended remedy goes beyond a bond hearing to immediate release, in part because respondents did not argue flight risk or danger.
- Any re-detention would require a clear-and-convincing showing at a pre-deprivation hearing, though the injunction does not cover detention under other statutory authority.
- Nothing is final yet. The district judge must decide whether to adopt the recommendations after any objections, and the due process claims were left unaddressed.
Why It Matters
The findings show how Eastern District magistrate judges are applying the Ninth Circuit's 2026 decision to interior arrests, including cases that begin with a misdemeanor arrest and a transfer to ICE custody. Respondents' own position that § 1226(a) governs removed the main legal dispute, so the remedy became the practical question, and the judge chose release over a bond hearing alone.
As findings and recommendations, the document has no binding effect on its own and carries no precedential weight. Its value lies in its reasoning and recommended remedy, which would take effect only if the district judge adopts them. Open questions include whether objections are filed, whether the recommendations are adopted, and what the status report shows about petitioner's release. The Texas criminal charge and the removal proceedings are not resolved by these findings.