Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Antonio Lopez-Zacarias, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States as a minor, was taken into custody, and was subsequently released to a family member who agreed to serve as his sponsor. He then lived in the United States for more than thirteen years, during which he applied for asylum, was granted work authorization, and established a family in the country. In September 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained him while he was traveling to work, and to date he had not received a bond hearing.
Lopez-Zacarias filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing is unlawful and violates his due process rights as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. Respondents filed a return to the petition, conceding that he is subject to detention and release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and stating that they do not oppose an order from the court directing that a bond hearing be held pursuant to that provision.
The Court’s Holding
The court first explained the scope of federal habeas jurisdiction. Although the court of appeals is the sole body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal, habeas jurisdiction remains in the district court for claims challenging collateral issues arising independently from the removal process, such as indefinite detention. Applying that framework, the court concluded that Lopez-Zacarias is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1193 (9th Cir. 2026).
The court granted in part and denied in part the petition for writ of habeas corpus. It ordered respondents to provide Lopez-Zacarias with an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days before a neutral immigration judge, in which the non-citizen bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk if released. If no hearing occurs within fourteen days of the order, the petitioner shall be released from respondents' custody.
The court denied without prejudice the request for release from detention, noting that if respondents do not provide an adequate bond hearing, the court may order release in the future. The parties must file a joint status report by November 13, 2026, informing the court of the outcome of the hearing, and petitioner's counsel may submit an Equal Access to Justice Act fee application within thirty days of the order.
Key Takeaways
- A non-citizen detained by immigration authorities without a bond hearing may challenge that detention through a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where he is confined.
- Federal district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over detention claims that arise independently from the removal process, even though the courts of appeals alone review final removal orders.
- When the government concedes that a detainee is subject to bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and does not oppose a court-ordered hearing, the district court may grant habeas relief and impose a specific deadline for the hearing.
- The court ordered an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days before a neutral immigration judge, stated that the non-citizen bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk if released, and required release from custody if no hearing occurs within the deadline.
- The court denied immediate release without prejudice, preserved the possibility of future release if the hearing is inadequate, directed a joint status report by November 13, 2026, and allowed an Equal Access to Justice Act fee application within thirty days.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces that federal district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over challenges to immigration detention that are collateral to the removal process itself, such as a claim of indefinite detention without a bond hearing. It shows that when the government concedes bond eligibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and does not oppose relief, a district court can grant habeas relief and attach concrete deadlines—here, a fourteen-day hearing requirement backed by release—to ensure the hearing is prompt.
The ruling also illustrates the procedural safeguards available to a long-term resident detained by immigration authorities. By conditioning continued detention on the timely provision of an individualized bond hearing and preserving the possibility of release if the hearing is inadequate, the court balanced enforcement interests against individual liberty concerns, and it confirmed that a prevailing habeas petitioner may seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.