Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jhean Marco Travi Caebajal, an immigration detainee representing himself, petitioned the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging prolonged detention without a bond hearing. The magistrate judge's findings recite that he entered the United States in May 2023, was released on his own recognizance pending removal proceedings, and was taken into immigration custody on January 10, 2026, where he has since remained. An immigration judge denied his asylum, withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture claims on June 2, 2026 and ordered him removed; his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was still pending.
Earlier in the case, the assigned district judge denied a temporary restraining order, reasoning that people detained on re-entry fall under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and referred the prolonged-detention claim to the magistrate judge. Respondents later advised that the Department of Homeland Security now treats the detention as discretionary under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The magistrate judge still recommended a bond hearing because Caebajal had been subjected to mandatory detention for a prolonged period.
The magistrate judge's September 30, 2026 recommendation (Doc. 18) allowed fourteen days for objections. After an extension, respondents filed a one-sentence objection on October 16, 2026 that relied on their earlier briefing (Doc. 21).
The Court’s Holding
Reviewing de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court found the recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis, adopted them in full, and granted the petition. The adopted findings rest on procedural due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test. They conclude that all three factors favor Caebajal: his liberty interest is fundamental; the risk of erroneous deprivation is high because he had received no bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker after roughly eight to nine months in custody; and the government's interest in detaining him without a hearing is low, with nothing in the record showing a hearing would be burdensome.
The relief is conditional. Respondents must give Caebajal a bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen days that complies with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denying bond. If he is found neither a danger nor so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond, the immigration judge should consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Respondents must immediately give him a copy of the order and 72 hours' notice of the hearing in a language he understands. He may be represented by counsel, and respondents may extend the deadline at his request so he can obtain one. If no hearing is held within fourteen days, respondents must release him. The clerk was directed to close the case, enter judgment for petitioner, and terminate remaining motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The order grants habeas relief by requiring a bond hearing within fourteen days; release is required only if respondents fail to provide a timely hearing.
- At the hearing the government bears the burden by clear and convincing evidence, and the immigration judge should weigh ability to pay and alternatives to detention.
- The adopted findings relied on the length of detention without any bond hearing and applied the Mathews balancing test, even though DHS had begun treating the detention as discretionary.
- A one-sentence objection that merely incorporated earlier briefing did not alter the result on de novo review.
- The order does not decide the removal case, so the pending Board of Immigration Appeals appeal and the immigration judge's eventual bond decision remain open.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order and has no precedential weight; it applies existing Ninth Circuit authority, chiefly Singh, to one detainee's circumstances. The findings acknowledge that the Ninth Circuit has not decided whether due process requires bond hearings for people detained under § 1225(b) and that district courts use varying approaches, so the order illustrates one common approach rather than settling the question.
What remains open is substantial: whether Caebajal will actually be released on bond, the pending administrative appeal, and the removal order itself. The findings also adopt Singh's burden allocation while noting that the Ninth Circuit has not decided whether Singh remains good law after Jennings v. Rodriguez.