Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Manuel Brito Morales, a 24-year-old native and citizen of Guatemala proceeding without counsel, filed a verified petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 2, 2026. The petition says he entered the United States without inspection in 2023. On August 30, 2026, police arrested him while he was traveling to work, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him. The court records continuous detention since that date. He received a Notice to Appear for standard removal proceedings under INA § 240, and the notice did not designate him an arriving alien. The warden did not contest the factual allegations or assert a criminal history, flight risk, or danger to the community.
Brito Morales sought immediate release or, alternatively, the bond hearing he said was due when detention began. He raised Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process challenges. The warden instead maintained that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) made detention mandatory for an applicant for admission and requested denial for lack of exhaustion or, alternatively, relief limited to a bond hearing. The court declined to address the passing exhaustion reference because it cited no authority. A later status report said Brito Morales had not requested immigration-judge review of the custody determination and that DHS lacked a mechanism to force noncitizens to receive bond hearings; the court said that report did not change the relief requested.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim recommends granting the petition on statutory grounds and ordering immediate release. The warden acknowledged that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2026), establishes that § 1226(a) governs this detention. That decision holds that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court also collected decisions from other circuits and district courts rejecting the government's revised interpretation, including its description of a DHS policy change in July 2025. It therefore concluded that the warden's § 1225(b)(2)(A) argument fails.
Because the statutory ground supplies the requested habeas relief, the court did not decide the Fourth Amendment or due process claims. It also did not construe as habeas claims the allegations that detention conditions mirrored prison conditions and that removal proceedings had not begun before arrest; it explained that conditions claims belong in civil-rights actions and the latter allegation was not a stand-alone claim. The only operative order denies appointed counsel without prejudice because the court recommends granting the petition. The remaining measures are recommendations: immediate release, return of personal possessions and documents in the warden's custody, and a restraint on re-detention unless clear and convincing evidence at a constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker establishes flight risk or danger. That restraint would not cover detention under different authority, such as § 1226(c) or § 1231.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendation rests on statutory detention authority under § 1226(a), not on a ruling that the Fourth Amendment or due process clause was violated.
- Rodriguez Vazquez controls the court's rejection of mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) for a noncitizen apprehended in the interior.
- The warden's unsupported, passing exhaustion argument did not prevent consideration of the habeas petition.
- The proposed release relief includes return of documents and possessions and a limited restraint on re-detention without an adequate pre-deprivation bond hearing.
- Appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice, while the habeas grant, release, judgment, and case closure remain recommendations rather than final district-court action.
Why It Matters
The findings and recommendations apply binding Ninth Circuit precedent to an uncontested factual record and join the authorities collected by the court rejecting DHS's expanded use of § 1225(b)(2)(A). They also show how a verified § 2241 petition can obtain review of the statutory basis for immigration detention without resolving every constitutional theory presented.
The document does not itself finally grant release or close the case. It was submitted to the assigned district judge, with objections due within seven days and responses due within seven days after service of objections. If the recommendations are adopted, the warden would have seven days from adoption to file a status report addressing Brito Morales's status, and the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment for him and close the case.