Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Angel Brayan Hernandez Hernandez, a Cuban national proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention in the Eastern District of California. According to the government records cited in the order, he entered the United States in July 2024 as an unaccompanied child and was paroled into the country by Customs and Border Protection. In June 2026 he was arrested by Miami police on state charges, including a third degree felony, a second degree felony, and a misdemeanor, which appear to remain pending. Custody was then transferred to immigration officials. A Form I-213 states that he was issued a Notice to Appear charging him as an immigrant without a valid entry document, although respondents did not supply a copy of that notice.
The petition raised three claims: a violation of the Accardi doctrine, a Fifth Amendment due process violation based on the lack of custody review, and a claim that third country removal is illegal combined with prolonged detention. Because petitioner is pro se, the magistrate judge also liberally construed the petition as raising a statutory claim under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Respondents' reply, citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, stated that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs petitioner's detention and that he may seek a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge, so the court saw no prejudice from that construction. Petitioner did not respond to the reply, and briefing was complete.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Relying on Rodriguez Vasquez, which held that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), and on decisions from other circuits and district courts reaching the same conclusion, the court reasoned that regulations give § 1226(a) detainees bond hearings at the outset of detention. Petitioner should therefore have received one, and the court recommended granting the petition on the statutory claim.
The court did not reach the Accardi and due process claims in light of that recommendation. It concluded that the prolonged detention theory did not show a due process violation because petitioner would receive a bond hearing. It recommended denying the third country removal claim because nothing in the record showed that such removal was at issue, so petitioner lacked standing at this time.
As to remedy, the court recommended a bond hearing rather than release, noting that courts have favored that remedy where a noncitizen faces serious criminal allegations. It recommended that the hearing occur within fourteen days after the findings are adopted, before an immigration judge or neutral decisionmaker, with respondents bearing the burden of proving danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. The recommendations also include seven days' notice, counsel's presence if petitioner has counsel, a status report within seven days of adoption, and entry of judgment and closure of the case. Separately, the order itself granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge treated a paroled noncitizen arrested in the interior as detained under § 1226(a), relying on Rodriguez Vasquez, which makes bond hearings available at the outset of detention.
- The relief is only recommended: the findings go to Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley and objections are due within fourteen days, so no hearing is required until the findings are adopted.
- The recommended hearing places the burden on the government to show danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, rather than ordering release.
- Claims not reached remain unresolved: the Accardi and due process claims were not decided, while the third country removal claim was recommended for denial for lack of standing on the present record.
Why It Matters
This order shows how Eastern District of California magistrate judges are applying the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vasquez decision to detainees held in immigration custody after interior arrests. Even though petitioner faces pending state felony charges, the court treated those charges as bearing on the remedy, a bond hearing rather than release, and not as a reason to deny a hearing.
Because it is a set of findings and recommendations, not a final judgment, it carries limited precedential weight and is not binding authority. Its main value is as an illustration of how courts frame the remedy, the burden of proof, and the treatment of unaddressed claims in pro se habeas cases. What happens after any objections remains open.