Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wilberth Antonio Montano Matamoros, a native and citizen of Nicaragua proceeding without counsel, applied for admission at the Nogales, Arizona Point of Entry on October 1, 2024. He was paroled into the United States under INA section 212(d)(5) and issued a Notice to Appear commencing standard removal proceedings under INA section 240. The Notice describes him as an arriving alien who was paroled. On August 30, 2026, immigration officers looking for someone else arrested him and placed him in ICE custody. The order states he has no criminal history.
He filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 30, 2026, asserting Fifth Amendment due process, Immigration and Nationality Act, irreparable harm, and financial-obligation claims. The warden answered on October 9, 2026, and petitioner filed no reply. Respondent did not argue flight risk or danger to the community and did not assert a criminal history. It contended instead that detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because petitioner was an applicant for admission who entered at the border. Respondent also recognized that his circumstances fall within the category of cases in which the court typically orders immediate release on due process grounds. The matter was before Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim under 28 U.S.C. § 636. The filing fee remained unpaid, though petitioner attached a form asking that it be sent from his funds.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the petition on the statutory claim. Citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), the order states that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A). It adds that the majority of courts nationwide agree, citing decisions of the Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits and several Eastern District of California rulings. On that basis it concludes that respondent's mandatory-detention argument fails. The order does not separately analyze petitioner's parole status.
Because the statutory claim supports relief, the court did not reach the remaining claims. The only operative order directs the Clerk to amend court records to reflect petitioner's name as it appears on the Notice to Appear. All other relief is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, Judge Dena M. Coggins: grant the petition; order immediate release with a copy of the release order and return of any personal documents held by respondent; enjoin re-detention unless the government shows by clear and convincing evidence, at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community; require a status report within seven days after adoption; and enter judgment and close the case. The proposed injunction would not reach detention under different authority, such as § 1226(c) or § 1231.
Key Takeaways
- These are findings and recommendations, so release and the re-detention bar take effect only if the district judge adopts them.
- Objections are due within seven days of service, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
- The court rejected the government's position that someone who applied for admission at the border is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Respondent did not assert flight risk, danger, or a criminal history, and the court did not decide petitioner's due process claim.
- The recommended re-detention bar is limited to the detention authority presented in this case and does not address § 1226(c) or § 1231.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district-court recommendation with no precedential weight; it is persuasive at most. Its reasoning rests on Rodriguez Vazquez, a Ninth Circuit decision that binds district courts in California, and on out-of-circuit authority that the order cites for the broader consensus.
For similarly situated detainees in the Eastern District, the order shows the relief recommended: immediate release, a status report, and a bar on re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing at which the government bears a clear-and-convincing burden. Open questions remain, including whether the district judge adopts the recommendations, whether the filing fee is paid, and what the status report shows about petitioner's circumstances. The constitutional claims were left undecided.