Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Blanca G. Lopez, a noncitizen, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on March 30, 2026, challenging her detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She alleged that detention without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, that her detention violated Fifth Amendment due process, and that it was unlawful civil detention. She also sought a temporary restraining order.
Respondents argued that Lopez is an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and that her case differed from an earlier district ruling, Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, because she was not on supervision when re-detained and has an extensive criminal history. On April 8, 2026, the district judge converted the motion into one for a preliminary injunction and granted it. Relying on prior rulings, the judge found Lopez likely to succeed on her claim that she could be detained only under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), ordered her immediate release to maintain the status quo ante, and enjoined re-detention for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge.
The case was then referred to a magistrate judge with merits briefing closed. After briefing ended, the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026).
The Court’s Holding
In findings and recommendations dated October 28, 2026, Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim recommends that the petition be granted. The court relied on Rodriguez Vazquez, in which the Ninth Circuit concluded that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). That conclusion defeated respondents' argument that Lopez is an applicant for admission subject to § 1225(b)(2). Because the record had not changed since the preliminary injunction ruling, the court recommended finding that Lopez was subject to § 1226(a).
Because resolving claim three, the unlawful civil detention claim, provided the relief requested, the court did not reach the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims. It recommended a permanent injunction barring re-detention unless the government first provides Lopez a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge or neutral decisionmaker under § 1226(a), with her counsel allowed to attend. The injunction would not address detention under different authority, such as § 1226(c) or § 1231. The court also recommended that the clerk enter judgment for petitioner and close the case. The recommended injunction as written does not repeat the exigent-circumstances exception that appeared in the preliminary injunction.
These are recommendations only. Objections are due within seven days of service, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district judge's order. The document leaves adoption to the district judge.
Key Takeaways
- Under Rodriguez Vazquez, a person present without admission and apprehended in the interior is treated as detained under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2), which defeated the government's applicant-for-admission theory here.
- The findings rest on the unchanged record from the preliminary injunction ruling and do not separately analyze the government's points about supervision and criminal history.
- The court resolved the case on the statutory claim and did not reach the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims.
- The recommended injunction is conditional: re-detention is barred unless a pre-deprivation hearing is provided, and counsel may attend.
- This is a recommendation, not an order, and it leaves detention under § 1226(c) or § 1231 unaddressed.
Why It Matters
The findings show how Eastern District of California judges are applying Rodriguez Vazquez to individual habeas petitions, turning preliminary relief into recommended final relief with a hearing safeguard against re-detention. As written, the government's effort to distinguish prior rulings did not change the outcome. For noncitizens arrested in the interior, the decision illustrates that the hearing right under § 1226(a) is the central remedy.
Its weight is limited. It is an unreported magistrate judge recommendation with no precedential effect, and the binding authority is the Ninth Circuit decision it applies. The document does not say whether the preliminary injunction continues while the recommendations are pending, and the recommended permanent injunction would take effect only if the district judge adopts it.