Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eliseo Ramirez Pacheco, a noncitizen detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California challenging his detention without a hearing on four grounds: violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, his Fifth Amendment due process rights, and his right to relief under Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. On February 16, 2026, he filed the petition with a motion for a temporary restraining order.
On February 17, 2026, the district court directed respondents to identify any issues distinguishing the case from Rangel v. Noem. Respondents argued that petitioner was an "applicant for admission" under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but acknowledged the case was not meaningfully distinct from Rangel. On February 19, 2026, the district court noted respondents' acknowledgment of no distinguishing issues, converted the TRO motion into a preliminary injunction motion, granted it in part, and ordered an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The case was then referred to the assigned magistrate judge.
In March 2026, status reports showed petitioner had not received the bond hearing but was released from custody on March 2, 2026. Respondents moved to dismiss as moot; petitioner disagreed, and briefing closed. After briefing concluded, the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, holding that noncitizens present without admission apprehended in the interior are subject to § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition on claim one, the statutory claim. Relying on Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the court found that petitioner, as a noncitizen present without admission apprehended in the interior, was subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). This meant petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing, and his detention without one was unlawful.
The court rejected respondents' mootness argument, holding that petitioner's release after the preliminary injunction did not render the petition moot. Because claim one provided full relief, the court declined to reach claims two through four, citing prior decisions from the Eastern District of California and the Southern District of California for the proposition that courts need not address remaining claims when one claim resolves the matter.
The magistrate judge recommended three numbered actions: first, that the habeas petition be granted; second, that a permanent injunction issue barring re-detention unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation, constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that petitioner is a flight risk or danger, with counsel present at any such hearing; and third, that the Clerk enter judgment for petitioner and close the case. The injunction is limited to the detention authority at issue and does not address other provisions such as § 1226(c) or § 1231.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock decision established that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States fall under the § 1226 detention regime and are entitled to bond hearings.
- The magistrate judge found that a petitioner's release from custody following a preliminary injunction does not moot a habeas petition challenging the lawfulness of the underlying detention.
- The recommended permanent injunction would require the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence at a constitutionally adequate bond hearing that the petitioner is a flight risk or danger before any future re-detention under the same statutory authority, with counsel present.
- The court declined to reach the petitioner's APA, due process, and Maldonado Bautista claims because the statutory claim alone provided complete relief.
- These findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge, with any party permitted to file written objections within seven days of service.
Why It Matters
This recommendation illustrates how the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision has reshaped immigration detention challenges in California federal courts. By confirming that interior-apprehended noncitizens are governed by § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2), the decision effectively entitles a significant population of detainees to individualized bond hearings they were previously denied.
The recommended permanent injunction is notable for its specificity, requiring clear and convincing evidence of flight risk or dangerousness at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with counsel present. If adopted by the district judge, it would provide concrete procedural protections against future unlawful detention and serve as a model for similar habeas petitions in the Eastern District of California.