Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Josue Concepcion Duarte Romero, a detained noncitizen, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 12, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, naming the Warden and others as respondents. He requested his immediate release or, in the alternative, a bond hearing. His petition challenged his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and argued that, as a noncitizen within the interior of the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1226 should govern his detention and that § 1226 entitled him to a bond hearing or immediate release.
The respondents conceded that Petitioner was subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than § 1225 and scheduled a bond hearing for him. In a Joint Status Report filed October 28, 2026, the parties stated that on October 1, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner released on a $10,000 bond, and that he was released on bond shortly thereafter.
With the petitioner no longer in custody, the district court turned to whether his release left an actual, ongoing case or controversy for the federal court to decide.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that Article III of the Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to actual, ongoing cases or controversies, and that an action becomes moot when no present case or controversy exists. In the immigration context, a habeas petition continues to present a live controversy after the petitioner's release or deportation only if some remaining collateral consequence may be redressed by success on the petition, citing Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2007).
Applying that standard, the court noted that neither party alleged that collateral consequences remain. Because the immigration judge's bond determination ultimately permitted Petitioner's release under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the court found there are no remaining collateral consequences that may be redressed by success on the petition. The court also cited Perez Agustin v. LaRose, 2025 WL 3277351 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025), for the proposition that once the petitioner has been released, the successful resolution of his pending claims could no longer provide the requested relief, and Alawad v. Figueroa, 2021 WL 1195789 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021), for dismissal where the petitioner did not demonstrate any remaining legally cognizable collateral consequences.
The court accordingly concluded that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is moot, dismissed the case without prejudice, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the matter. The order did not decide the underlying statutory question of whether § 1225 or § 1226 governed the detention on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- Release on an immigration judge's $10,000 bond order eliminated the live case or controversy supporting Duarte Romero's request for immediate release or a bond hearing.
- The court required a remaining collateral consequence that success on the petition could redress, and neither party alleged one.
- The respondents' concession that 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not § 1225, governed the detention preceded the bond hearing and the release.
- The dismissal was without prejudice, and the court expressly did not resolve the merits of the statutory detention argument.
- The Clerk of Court was directed to close the matter.
Why It Matters
The order applies established Article III mootness principles to an immigration detention petition after the petitioner obtains the practical relief he sought. It shows that release under the very detention statute the petitioner advocated can end federal habeas jurisdiction when no redressable collateral consequence remains.
The decision is a case-specific application of Abdala v. INS rather than a new rule governing 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or § 1226. Its practical importance lies in the court's focus on whether any concrete, legally cognizable consequence remains after release, not in a merits determination about the proper detention framework.