Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Luis Abrego Galban filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention at the Golden State Annex ICE Detention Facility. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who on September 24, 2026, issued findings and recommendations that the second amended petition be granted and that respondents be directed to provide the petitioner with a bond hearing.
The magistrate judge served the findings and recommendations on the parties and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. The court warned the parties that failure to file objections within the specified time could waive the right to appeal the district court's order, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). No objections were filed, and the time for doing so passed.
The Court’s Holding
The district court conducted a de novo review of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After carefully reviewing the entire file, the court concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted the second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on the second claim for relief.
The court ordered that within 14 days of the date of service of the order, unless the petitioner consents to a later date, respondents must provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond. If the petitioner is determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond, the immigration judge should consider the petitioner's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release, citing Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017).
The court also ordered that at least 72 hours before the scheduled hearing, the petitioner must receive notice of the hearing, that he has the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing, and that he is entitled to appear at the hearing. If counsel has filed an appearance in the immigration proceedings, counsel must also receive notice at least 72 hours before the hearing. Respondents must provide a copy of the order to the immigration judge and ensure that the bond hearing is recorded. The Clerk of Court was directed to serve the California City Immigration Processing Center with a copy of the order and to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full after conducting a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
- The court granted the second amended habeas petition and ordered respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days.
- At the bond hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond, as required by Singh v. Holder.
- If the petitioner is found not to be a danger or a significant flight risk, the immigration judge must consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release, consistent with Hernandez v. Sessions.
- The court directed that the petitioner receive at least 72 hours' notice of the hearing, that he has the right to counsel and to appear, and that the hearing be recorded.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the procedural protections required for immigration detainees seeking bond hearings under Ninth Circuit precedent. By adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, the district court affirmed that detainees are entitled to an individualized bond hearing where the government must meet a heightened burden of proof to justify continued detention.
The order also underscores the importance of timely objections to magistrate judge findings and recommendations. Because no objections were filed within the 14-day period, the district court adopted the findings and recommendations without further opposition, and the case was closed.