Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jeny Catalina Moreno Parra, a native and citizen of Mexico proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 14, 2026. She alleged that she was subject to a 2006 removal or reinstatement order and that, as she claims, she was released on parole by ICE in 2006 and thereafter lived openly in the United States for 20 years; she also alleged a pending asylum application. Respondents disputed parts of her immigration history, stating that the Form I-213 contained no record of her being contacted or released in 2006.
According to the Answer, Petitioner was arrested in 2023 and later charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office; in February 2026 she was sentenced to 16 months in state prison. On August 28, 2026, upon her parole from the California Institution for Women, Enforcement and Removal Operations took her into custody, processed her for removal, and served her with a Notice to Appear under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA. She was detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.
The petition asserted three claims: that her detention violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment, that it violated substantive due process, and that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. It sought her immediate release. Respondents answered on September 24, 2026 under an expedited briefing schedule, acknowledging that Petitioner appeared entitled to an initial bond hearing under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), and suggesting any ordered hearing occur within seven days. Petitioner filed no reply.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow ordered judgment granting the petition. The court explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is the default detention statute for noncitizens in removal proceedings and that, under Rodriguez Vazquez, detention under that provision is discretionary and allows release on bond pending removal proceedings. Because Respondents confirmed Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) and conceded she appeared entitled to an initial bond hearing, the court found that her continued detention without a bond hearing violates § 1226(a) and her right to due process.
The court ordered judgment granting the petition and directing Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19 and 1236.13 within seven days. Respondents must give the immigration judge a copy of the order, must release Petitioner within eight days if no hearing is provided, and must file a status report within two business days of the hearing or release attesting to compliance.
The court noted in a footnote that its determination that Petitioner is entitled to relief on the first claim renders it unnecessary to address the other claims. A further footnote instructed that the immigration judge must exercise discretion on bond based on relevant factors—including criminal history, immigration history, manner of entry, fixed residence, length of residence, family ties, employment history, and compliance with prior orders, citing Matter of Guerra—and must provide reasons orally or in writing under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(f).
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered judgment granting a pro se § 2241 habeas petition and directed an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven days.
- The ruling rested on the government's own concession that a noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is entitled to an initial bond hearing under the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision.
- Continued detention under § 1226(a) without a bond hearing was found to violate both the statute and the petitioner's due process rights.
- If Respondents fail to provide the hearing, they must release the petitioner within eight days, and they must file a status report confirming compliance.
- The court found it unnecessary to address the substantive due process or Administrative Procedure Act claims after granting relief on the first claim.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how district courts in the Central District of California are applying the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez ruling to secure prompt bond hearings for immigration detainees held under § 1226(a), on an expedited schedule and with the government's agreement. It also shows that the remedy is a hearing before an immigration judge—not automatic release—with the immigration judge retaining discretion over bond based on the Matter of Guerra factors.
The decision is also notable for its built-in enforcement mechanism: a release deadline if the hearing is not held and a mandatory status report, ensuring the order is not merely advisory.