Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, a Guatemalan citizen represented by counsel, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 8, 2026. As alleged, he entered without inspection around 2005, received Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in 2013, and was served a Notice to Appear in 2016. He asked the court to identify the statutory basis for his detention and to order release or an individualized custody hearing.
Respondents' answer, to which petitioner filed no reply, recounts that an immigration judge granted voluntary departure with an alternate removal order in 2018, following the first of three driving-under-the-influence convictions. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed in 2019, and petitioner's Ninth Circuit petition for review remains pending under a stay of removal. Released on supervision in 2020, he was taken into immigration custody on September 4, 2026, when he left state prison after a 16-month sentence for a March 2026 conviction.
Respondents argued that detention was proper given the recent conviction. They acknowledged, however, that petitioner appeared entitled to an initial bond hearing under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), and stated that at most the remedy would be a bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The Court’s Holding
In the companion Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the magistrate judge found that petitioner appears to be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), as respondents contended, rather than under the post-removal-order statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Because the Ninth Circuit's stay leaves his removal order not yet final, the court relied on Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 525 (9th Cir. 2023), to place him under section 1226(a). That section carries substantial procedural protections, including the right to request a custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d). The court concluded that habeas relief was warranted in the form of a bond hearing.
The Judgment, entered the same day, adjudges the Petition granted and directs a writ requiring respondents to give petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge under section 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19 and 1236.1 within seven days of the Order. The immigration judge must exercise discretion on release, considering factors such as criminal history, immigration history, manner of entry, fixed residence, length of residence, family ties, employment history, and compliance with prior orders. The judge must also state the reasons orally or in writing under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(f). Respondents must give the immigration judge a copy of the Order.
If no hearing is provided, respondents must release petitioner within eight days of the Order. They must also file a status report within two business days after the hearing or release attesting to compliance. The Judgment does not decide whether petitioner should be released on bond, and it does not separately resolve the petition's argument under section 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii) or address the pending Ninth Circuit petition for review. Those matters remain open, and the case is terminated on the district court docket.
Key Takeaways
- A pending Ninth Circuit petition for review with a stay of removal means the removal order is not yet final, and the court treated detention in that posture as governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than § 1231.
- The remedy is a bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven days, not an order releasing petitioner on bond, and the immigration judge keeps discretion over the bond decision.
- Release within eight days is triggered only if the bond hearing has not been provided, and respondents must report compliance within two business days of the hearing or release.
- Respondents' acknowledgment that a bond hearing was at most the appropriate remedy, together with the absence of a reply from petitioner, left the remedy effectively uncontested.
- This is an unreported district court judgment implementing a companion order, and it carries no precedential weight.
Why It Matters
The Judgment illustrates how Central District courts are applying expedited habeas procedures to detainees whose removal orders are stayed by the Ninth Circuit. A criminal history, here three DUI convictions, did not by itself displace the section 1226(a) bond-hearing framework. The court left the weighing of that history to the immigration judge.
Its reach is narrow. It rests on a short companion order and partly on respondents' acknowledgment of Rodriguez Vazquez, and it binds only these parties. The outcome of the bond hearing, any later custody proceedings, and the Ninth Circuit's disposition of the petition for review all remain undecided.