Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose David Anaribas, a Honduran citizen who entered the United States without inspection in 2005, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. According to his petition, on May 4, 2026, he was walking home in Florida when a Florida Highway Patrol officer stopped him and asked for immigration documents; when he could not provide any, the officer arrested him, and ICE took custody of him later that same day.
Respondents acknowledged that, following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, Anaribas is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits arrest and detention on an administrative warrant, rather than the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2)(A). They therefore did not oppose an order requiring a § 1226(a) bond hearing, but they opposed immediate release because ICE had issued an administrative I-200 warrant for Anaribas on the day he was detained. The court noted that it was undisputed that the warrant was dated May 4, 2026 and signed by an immigration officer. A footnote added that it was not until May 6, 2026—two days after Anaribas's initial detention—that the Eleventh Circuit held in Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr. Miami that the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2)(A) do not apply to noncitizens like Petitioner.
The Court’s Holding
The court partially granted the petition and ordered Respondents to provide Anaribas an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated regulations within 14 days of the order, unless Petitioner requests a continuance. If requested by Petitioner, Respondents shall assist him in obtaining an audio recording of the bond hearing. The Clerk of the Court was directed to close the case.
The court denied Anaribas's request for immediate release. Like many other courts in the Southern District of California faced with similar circumstances, it denied immediate release where the government submitted evidence that an administrative warrant was served on the petitioner on the same day he was detained, citing Nunez Yanez v. Mullin, Calmo Perez v. Mullin, and Ortiz v. LaRose. The court rejected Anaribas's argument that Respondents had not proved the warrant was issued before he was taken into ICE custody.
Even assuming without deciding that a same-day warrant is insufficient, the court held that Anaribas would still not be entitled to immediate release, because he was detained before the Ninth or Eleventh Circuits held that unadmitted noncitizens encountered for the first time were detained under § 1226 and not § 1225. The court declines to retroactively apply later precedent when Respondents appear to have treated Petitioner subject to § 1225 before that precedent.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered Respondents to provide Anaribas an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of the order, unless he requests a continuance.
- The court denied Anaribas's request for immediate release, consistent with other Southern District of California decisions denying release where the government submitted evidence of a same-day administrative warrant.
- Even assuming a same-day warrant were insufficient, the court held Anaribas still not entitled to immediate release and declined to retroactively apply later circuit precedent because Respondents appeared to have treated him as subject to § 1225 before that precedent.
- If requested by Petitioner, Respondents shall assist him in obtaining an audio recording of the bond hearing.
- The Clerk of the Court was directed to close the case following the partial grant of the petition.
Why It Matters
This decision reflects ongoing litigation over immigration detention procedures following recent circuit court rulings distinguishing mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) from discretionary detention under § 1226(a). It shows that even when the government concedes that a bond hearing is required, a court may still deny immediate release where an administrative warrant was issued on the same day as detention, and may alternatively rest the denial on non-retroactivity of later precedent.
The court's refusal to retroactively apply the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits' later decisions highlights the difficulty of applying evolving legal standards to detention decisions made before those standards were clarified, and may affect other noncitizens detained under one statutory provision before courts determined that a different provision should have applied.