Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Luis Antonio Lopez Salan, a native and citizen of Guatemala who has lived continuously in the United States for more than twenty years and is married to a U.S. citizen, was stopped and arrested by immigration officers on June 18, 2026, while driving on Highway 395. His petition alleges that ICE was looking for a different person, mistakenly identified him, and then took him into custody solely because of his immigration status, without a warrant and without an individualized reason to believe he would flee before a warrant could be obtained.
A Notice to Appear dated June 28, 2026 charged him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and he was held at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. He filed a habeas petition on September 14, 2026, challenging the warrantless arrest, detention under the wrong statute, the denial of an individualized bond determination, and prolonged detention without a bond hearing. Respondents conceded he was eligible for an initial bond hearing under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock but argued he remained properly detained, had not exhausted administrative remedies, and should not obtain immediate release.
The Court’s Holding
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson granted the petition. The court found it undisputed that Respondents applied 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) even though Petitioner, apprehended in the interior, was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Given the extended detention after a warrantless arrest, the post-arrest creation of a Form I-200, the absence of any flight-risk or danger finding, and the withheld bond hearing, the court held that immediate release was warranted.
The court also held that detention was unlawful from the outset because Respondents did not comply with § 1226(a)'s protections. It noted that Respondents' own documents undercut their account: the I-213 narrative indicated an I-200 warrant had been issued for someone named 'MARTINEZ,' and the supporting facts were learned only after the claimed service time. Rejecting a belated bond hearing as not secure, the court ordered that the warrantless arrest violated § 1357(a)(2), the denial of a bond hearing violated the INA, APA, and Fifth Amendment, any APA exhaustion failure was excused, and Respondents must immediately release Petitioner on the conditions existing before his June 28, 2026 detention, return his property, refrain from re-detaining him without notice and a meaningful hearing, and file a release notice within three days.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the habeas petition and ordered immediate release because Petitioner was held under the wrong statutory authority and denied the procedural protections of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- Respondents conceded that an interior apprehension is governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2), and that Petitioner was entitled to an initial bond hearing under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
- The government's documents undermined its arrest account because the I-213 showed the I-200 warrant was issued for 'MARTINEZ' and rested on facts learned after the claimed service time.
- A delayed bond hearing was not an adequate remedy because it would not resolve the warrantless-arrest and due-process claims and could be performative where the government reserved the right to deny relief.
- Costs and attorney fees were not awarded in the order; any request must be filed separately under the Equal Access to Justice Act deadlines.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock framework to an interior apprehension and shows that when the government concedes the statutory misclassification and cannot justify a warrantless arrest, a court may order immediate release rather than only a later bond hearing.
It is also notable for excusing any APA exhaustion failure and for treating a belated, conditional bond hearing as inadequate habeas relief in these circumstances.