Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, a Mexican citizen who says he entered the United States without inspection in 2017, was arrested by ICE agents on December 16, 2025, months after a September 2025 state drug-possession arrest whose charge remains pending. He alleged that masked men in civilian clothes handcuffed him and placed him in a car without a warrant or any explanation. In an earlier habeas case, the government acknowledged that he appeared to belong to the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. There the Central District entered a declaratory judgment that such detainees are held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The Ninth Circuit has stayed that judgment outside the Central District, but it remains in place here.
The earlier court recommended, and the district judge accepted, an individualized bond hearing. On July 14, 2026, an immigration judge held the hearing and denied bond, finding danger and flight risk. Petitioner then filed this new petition in August 2026. After counsel was appointed, his First Amended Petition alleged that the warrantless arrest violated § 1226(a) and due process, that his detention violated § 1226 and the Bautista judgment, that he was held without a pre-deprivation hearing, and that the bond decision was constitutionally deficient because of alleged systemic bias. The government argued he must first appeal the bond denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals and did not substantively answer his warrantless-arrest allegations.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition and ordered immediate release. It first rejected the exhaustion argument, reasoning that constitutional claims are generally excepted because immigration judges and the Board cannot decide them. It then treated the government's failure to contest the factual basis of the due process claim as a concession under Local Civil Rule 7-12, and found it undisputed that Petitioner was arrested without a warrant and received no initial custody determination. Relying on the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vasquez decision and the preclusive effect of the Bautista judgment, the court concluded that Petitioner should have received the protections of § 1226(a). These include a lawful warrant absent an exception, a prompt initial custody determination, review by an immigration judge, appeal to the Board, and the chance to seek a new hearing on changed circumstances. Because he was instead arrested under § 1225(b) authority, his detention was unlawful from its initiation.
On remedy, the court reasoned that a post-detention bond hearing, held more than seven months after arrest and only after court order, is no substitute for the process owed at the outset, and that habeas relief should restore the position he would have been in absent the violation. It added that release was particularly warranted given the government's continued refusal to comply with the Bautista judgment. The order requires release on the same conditions, if any, that applied at arrest, return of confiscated property, and a status report within two business days. It also enjoins re-detention without complying with applicable statutes and regulations, including written notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter. Because the first two claims sufficed, the court did not reach the remaining claims, including the challenge to the bond hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A Bautista class member arrested under § 1225(b) authority may obtain release when denied the process § 1226(a) requires, including a warrant and an initial custody determination.
- In this court's view, a court-ordered bond hearing held months after arrest did not cure the missing initial process.
- A failure to respond to factual allegations can be treated as a concession under Local Civil Rule 7-12.
- The court rejected the government's demand that Petitioner first exhaust a Board appeal, because his claims were constitutional.
- Release is on the prior conditions, and re-detention is barred unless the government complies with applicable law, including written notice and a pre-deprivation hearing.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, so it is persuasive rather than binding. It rests on the Central District's Bautista judgment, which the Ninth Circuit has stayed outside this district. Its value lies in joining other district decisions that treat release, rather than a belated bond hearing, as the remedy when the government detains under the wrong statute.
Much remains open. The court did not decide whether Petitioner is in fact a danger or flight risk, did not review the immigration judge's bond denial, and did not reach the pre-deprivation-hearing and bias claims. The government may seek to re-detain him only by complying with applicable statutes and regulations, including notice and a neutral pre-deprivation hearing. The government has also appealed the Bautista judgment.