Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carlos Alexander Solano Izaguirre, a native and citizen of Honduras, is currently in DHS custody at the Adelanto Detention Facility. He is married to a U.S. citizen and has two adult U.S.-citizen children and three adult U.S.-citizen stepchildren. ICE officers arrested him on July 23, 2026, when he and his wife appeared for a scheduled USCIS interview. The arrest executed an in absentia removal order entered in Harlingen, Texas, on February 3, 2000. Solano alleged that he had not received notice of that order and was residing in Los Angeles at the time it was issued. Seven days after his arrest, he moved to reopen and rescind the order for lack of notice; that motion remained pending. At the time of arrest his spouse had a pending I-130 application, which USCIS approved only later.
Solano filed his habeas petition on October 1, 2026. He challenged his continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), the absence of individualized custody review under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4, and procedural and substantive due process. He sought immediate release or, alternatively, a prompt and constitutionally adequate custody hearing. He did not dispute ICE's initial authority to arrest him, but argued that his motion to reopen and accompanying stay undermined the justification for continued incarceration.
Respondents defended the initial arrest as effectuating an executable removal order, yet also acknowledged that Solano appeared entitled to request and receive a bond hearing under § 1226(a), citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock. They argued that a bond hearing was the most relief available and raised exhaustion concerns. Solano replied that the government had not coherently identified the authority for his continuing custody. On October 13, the court ordered a supplemental brief clarifying the applicable statute and, if § 1231 applied, requiring respondents to address his contentions that he had received no post-order custody-review notice, no written determination under § 241.4, no individualized danger or flight-risk assessment, and no evidence of alternatives to detention. Respondents filed nothing further.
The Court’s Holding
The court accepted respondents' position that § 1226(a) applies to Solano and that he is eligible for a bond hearing under the statute, after respondents declined to file the requested supplemental brief, relying on the party-presentation principle of United States v. Sineneng-Smith. Because respondents no longer treated § 1231(a)(6) as governing his detention, the court reasoned that they had no obligation to provide the custody-review procedures under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 that Solano sought. The court also concluded that Solano had not shown he was entitled to outright release on his claims.
The appropriate relief was therefore a prompt bond hearing, not unconditional release. The court noted Solano's concern that an immigration judge might question jurisdiction to conduct a bond hearing, but stated that respondents were bound by their position and by the court's order accepting it. Solano indicated that he had requested a bond hearing on September 30, 2026, and neither party indicated that the hearing had occurred. The court ordered respondents to provide a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) within seven days.
The judgment granted the petition and directed issuance of a writ of habeas corpus requiring Solano's release unless he is provided a § 1226(a) bond hearing within seven days. Respondents must also file a status report confirming compliance within ten calendar days. The order did not direct an immigration judge to grant bond or decide Solano's pending motion to reopen.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief but ordered a bond hearing rather than Solano's immediate unconditional release.
- Respondents' own position that § 1226(a) applied was central to the court's resolution after they declined to file the requested supplemental brief.
- Because the government no longer relied on § 1231(a)(6), the court found no obligation to provide the custody-review procedures specified in 8 C.F.R. § 241.4.
- Solano must be released if respondents do not provide the required bond hearing within seven days, and respondents must confirm compliance in a status report within ten calendar days.
- The ruling leaves the immigration judge's bond determination and Solano's pending motion to reopen for the appropriate immigration proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how the government's litigation position can determine the statutory framework and available remedy in an immigration-detention habeas case. Rather than independently resolving every statutory and constitutional theory, the court used party presentation to hold respondents to their acknowledgment that Solano could receive a § 1226(a) bond hearing.
The conditional writ supplies a concrete deadline and a release consequence if the hearing is not provided. It also addresses the risk of further delay over immigration-judge jurisdiction by stating that respondents are bound by their position and the court's acceptance of it, while leaving the merits of custody and reopening unresolved.