Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Leander Corona Espinoza, a Venezuelan national, entered the United States without inspection in February 2022 and was released on his own recognizance after being served a Notice to Appear. He was later granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) until April 2, 2025, and claims a pending I-130 petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife. While living in Orlando, Florida, he worked as a licensed commercial truck driver. Espinoza was arrested for domestic violence in August 2024 (charges dropped) and again in March 2026 for domestic violence and kidnapping-false imprisonment; the victim later signed a declination of prosecution. Following the March 2026 arrest, ICE took him into custody from Orange County Jail.
On March 7, 2026, Espinoza was served a Form I-200 Warrant for Arrest and Notice of Custody Redetermination. A new Notice to Appear was issued on March 30, 2026, charging him under §§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and 212(a)(6)(A)(i). On August 13, 2026, an immigration judge conducted a custody redetermination bond hearing and denied bond, finding Espinoza a flight risk due to his failure to submit evidence of his marriage and a sponsor. Espinoza appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 24, 2026, arguing his detention violated due process and his bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate. Respondents opposed, asserting mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) for arriving aliens, but Espinoza acknowledged that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), governed and required application of § 1226(a).
The Court’s Holding
The court withdraws the reference to the magistrate judge in the interest of justice and judicial efficiency. It holds that under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock and a line of Eastern District of California cases, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Espinoza's detention, not the mandatory detention provision for arriving aliens under § 1225(b)(2)(A). However, because Espinoza has already received a bond hearing at which the immigration judge found him a flight risk, the court does not order his release but instead mandates a new bond hearing with the proper burden of proof.
The court finds that the August 13, 2026 bond hearing was constitutionally deficient because the immigration judge placed the burden of proof on Espinoza, noting he "failed to submit evidence [of] his alleged marriage to a U.S. Citizen," rather than requiring the government to prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence as required by Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). The court denies any challenge to the IJ's factual findings, ruling such complaints must be exhausted through the BIA appeal process. The court orders Respondents to provide a new individualized bond hearing within 14 days where the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, with 72 hours' notice, right to counsel, and a recorded proceeding. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court applies Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock to hold that § 1226(a) governs detention for noncitizens paroled or released after entry, rejecting mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- A bond hearing that places the burden of proof on the detainee violates due process; the government must prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
- Challenges to an immigration judge's factual findings at a bond hearing must be exhausted through administrative appeal to the BIA before seeking habeas relief.
- The court orders a new bond hearing within 14 days with specific procedural protections: 72-hour notice, right to counsel, right to appear, and a recorded hearing.
- If the detainee is found not to be a danger or significant flight risk, the immigration judge must consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release under Hernandez v. Sessions.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez ruling that noncitizens who entered without inspection but were later paroled or released are entitled to bond hearings under § 1226(a), not subject to mandatory detention as arriving aliens. It adds to a growing body of Eastern District of California cases applying this principle. The order clarifies that even when a bond hearing has occurred, habeas relief is available to correct a misallocation of the burden of proof, ensuring the government bears the burden of justifying continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. The detailed procedural requirements for the new hearing—notice, counsel, recording, and consideration of financial circumstances—provide a template for due process-compliant bond proceedings in the district.