Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Abraham Alexander Laya Londaeta, a native of Venezuela, entered the United States without inspection in February 2022 and was released on recognizance after receiving a Notice to Appear charging removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). He has pending applications for Temporary Protected Status and asylum. On October 24, 2024, he received a second Notice to Appear adding a charge under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). In June 2023, he was charged in Florida with driving without a valid license and failed to appear, resulting in a state warrant. ICE encountered him in Osceola County jail on August 25, 2026, lodged a detainer, and transferred him to the California City Detention Facility where he remains in immigration custody.
On September 21, 2026, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting his detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Respondents filed a response on October 2, 2026, asserting detention authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The matter was initially referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, but the district judge withdrew the reference in the interest of justice and judicial efficiency.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that pursuant to Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), and a line of Eastern District of California cases, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A). However, the court found Respondents may have a legitimate interest in detention based on Petitioner's failure to appear for his Florida arraignment, noting that a criminal conviction is not required before a releasee may be found in violation of supervision terms. Balancing equities and public interests, the court concluded a post-deprivation bond hearing is sufficient rather than immediate release.
The court granted the petition in part and ordered Respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days. At the hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community to justify denial of bond, per Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). If Petitioner is found not to be a danger or significant flight risk, the immigration judge must consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release per Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017). The court also ordered 72-hour notice to Petitioner and counsel, the right to counsel and appearance at the hearing, and that the hearing be recorded.
Key Takeaways
- The court applied Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock) to determine that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), provides the statutory authority for detaining a noncitizen who was previously released and later re-apprehended.
- A post-deprivation bond hearing satisfies due process where the government has a legitimate interest in detention based on a failure to appear for criminal proceedings, even absent a conviction.
- At the bond hearing, the government bears the burden of proving flight risk or danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.
- If bond is warranted, the immigration judge must consider the detainee's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release.
- The court withdrew the magistrate judge reference to promote judicial efficiency and decided the habeas petition directly.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Eastern District of California's consistent application of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock to require § 1226(a) bond hearings for noncitizens who were previously released and later re-detained. It clarifies that the government's interest in detention based on a failure to appear for state criminal proceedings—without a conviction—can justify continued detention pending a bond hearing, but does not eliminate the requirement for an individualized hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof. The order's detailed procedural requirements (72-hour notice, right to counsel, recorded hearing, consideration of financial circumstances) operationalize Ninth Circuit precedent from Singh v. Holder and Hernandez v. Sessions for the immigration judge.