Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aaron Ariel Garcia Ortiz, a federal immigration detainee represented by counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(17). Petitioner had been detained since March 19, 2026, without receiving a bond hearing to determine whether he presented a danger or flight risk.
On October 1, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the habeas petition be granted and that petitioner receive a bond hearing. The magistrate judge found that petitioner's detention had become unreasonably prolonged. Respondents filed objections on October 8, 2026, arguing that because petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the Constitution does not entitle him to a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof. Petitioner filed a response on October 15, 2026, requesting release if the court revisited any aspect of the magistrate judge's order, or alternatively that the court itself preside over any bond hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The district court conducted a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and adopted the findings and recommendations in full. The court assumed without deciding that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(E) based on his notice to appear, which charged him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and (a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and with theft. The court acknowledged that noncitizens subject to § 1226(c) are not statutorily entitled to a bond hearing, citing Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 525, 530 (9th Cir. 2023), and Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018).
However, the court held that prolonged and indefinite detention under § 1226(c) without a bond hearing can violate the Due Process Clause. The court found that petitioner's detention of over seven months had become prolonged, entitling him to a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. The court rejected respondents' objection that the government should not bear the burden of proof, noting that respondents provided no supporting authority. The court ordered that at the bond hearing, the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a danger or flight risk, citing consistent district court practice in the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit's decision in Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133 (2d Cir. 2024).
The court granted the habeas petition in part, ordering respondents to provide petitioner a bond hearing within fourteen days. The court denied petitioner's request for immediate release, finding no authority supporting release when § 1226(c) mandates detention. The court also denied petitioner's request that the court itself conduct the bond hearing, and denied his request for attorneys' fees without prejudice to renewal on a properly noticed and supported motion. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Prolonged mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without a bond hearing can violate the Due Process Clause, even though the statute itself does not provide for bond hearings.
- When a bond hearing is constitutionally required due to prolonged detention, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a danger or flight risk.
- A detention of approximately seven and a half months without a bond hearing was found to be unreasonably prolonged and unconstitutional in this case.
- District courts in the Ninth Circuit have consistently applied the clear and convincing evidence standard with the government bearing the burden when ordering bond hearings for prolonged mandatory detention.
- Even when a habeas petition is granted and a bond hearing is ordered, the detainee is not entitled to immediate release if § 1226(c) mandates detention pending removal proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the growing consensus among district courts in the Ninth Circuit that prolonged mandatory immigration detention without a bond hearing violates due process, even when detention is statutorily required under § 1226(c). The ruling clarifies that when constitutional concerns mandate a bond hearing, the government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, placing the burden on the government rather than the detainee.
The case also illustrates the procedural framework for habeas challenges to immigration detention, including the role of magistrate judge findings and recommendations, de novo review by the district court, and the limited remedies available—specifically, that courts can order bond hearings but not release when mandatory detention statutes apply. The decision contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on the constitutional limits of immigration detention and the procedural protections required when detention becomes prolonged.