Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vinh Ma, an immigration detainee, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued detention without a bond hearing. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 6, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the petition be granted and that Ma be given a bond hearing. The parties were served with notice that objections were due within fourteen days.
The order states that Ma had been detained since March 2025 without any determination whether his continued detention serves a legitimate governmental interest or is arbitrary. Respondents timely objected on October 21, 2026. They argued that because Ma was detained near the border, the entry fiction doctrine gives him only certain legal rights, short of those of a person inside the United States, so his detention does not implicate the Due Process Clause. They also objected to placing the burden of proof on the government at any bond hearing. The district judge reviewed the matter de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court’s Holding
The court found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis, and it rejected the entry-fiction argument as incorrect. It reasoned that freedom from government custody, detention, or other physical restraint lies at the heart of the liberty the Due Process Clause protects, citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). It also cited Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256-57 (9th Cir. 2018), which expressed grave doubts about statutes allowing arbitrary prolonged detention without process. It further cited a Southern District of California decision agreeing that a person held under Section 1225(b) may raise a due process challenge to prolonged mandatory detention without a bond hearing.
Although respondents disagreed, the court held that the magistrate judge properly drew an analogy to other forms of prolonged detention, citing German Santos v. Warden Pike County Correctional Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2020), which required a bond hearing for a detainee held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The court agreed that Ma's detention had become unreasonably prolonged and that due process required a bond hearing. On the burden of proof, it stated that this court and others place the burden on the government when detention under § 1225(b) becomes unreasonably prolonged, and it cited several district court decisions.
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition. It ordered a bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen days that complies with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ma is a flight risk or danger to the community to justify denying bond. The immigration judge should consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release if he is not a danger and not so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond. Respondents must give Ma the order immediately and 72 hours' notice of the hearing in a language he understands. He may be represented by counsel, and respondents may extend the deadline at his request so he can retain one. If no hearing occurs within fourteen days, respondents must release him. The clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment for petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that the entry fiction doctrine did not defeat a due process challenge to prolonged detention of a person held near the border.
- Detention under § 1225(b) that has become unreasonably prolonged, here since March 2025 without any custody determination, was held to require a bond hearing.
- At the hearing the government carries the burden of proving flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence, and the immigration judge should consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release.
- The relief is a bond hearing, not an order of release. Release is required only if respondents fail to hold the hearing within fourteen days.
- This is an unreported district court order, so it is persuasive at most and does not bind other courts.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Ninth Circuit's Singh bond-hearing framework to a detainee held under § 1225(b) and relies mainly on district court decisions, along with Zadvydas and Rodriguez. It cites no Ninth Circuit decision that squarely requires this result, so its reasoning is persuasive authority from one district judge.
Much remains open. The immigration judge will decide whether Ma is a flight risk or danger and whether he is released or bonded. The order does not address his removability or any immigration claims, and it does not discuss any appeal by respondents.