Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Iverson Miquel Ramirez Araujo, a Venezuelan national, entered the United States without inspection in September 2024. He subsequently scheduled an appointment via the CBP One application and presented himself at the Calexico West Port of Entry, where he was processed, issued a Notice to Appear (NTA), and paroled into the country. The original NTA was never filed with the immigration court. On May 15, 2026, Petitioner was arrested in Utah for failing to stop at the command of police. He was encountered by ICE at the Salt Lake County Adult Detention Complex and taken into immigration custody on May 20, 2026, at which time he was served with a new NTA charging him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). He is currently detained at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center in Bakersfield, California.
On September 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondents opposed the petition on September 29, 2026, arguing that Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) as an arriving alien. The matter was initially referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
The Court’s Holding
The court withdraws the reference to the magistrate judge in the interest of justice and judicial efficiency. Relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), and a series of Eastern District of California cases, the court holds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention, not the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)(A). Because Petitioner was paroled into the United States after presenting himself at a port of entry, he is not an 'arriving alien' subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b). The court grants the habeas petition in part on this basis.
However, the court declines to order Petitioner's immediate release. Noting Petitioner's recent arrest for failing to stop at the command of police, the court finds that Respondents have a legitimate interest in detention and that the equities favor a post-deprivation bond hearing rather than immediate release. The court orders Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days. At this hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community, per Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). If Petitioner is found not to be a danger or significant flight risk, the immigration judge must consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release under Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017). The court also mandates specific procedural protections: 72 hours' notice of the hearing, right to counsel, right to appear, and a recorded proceeding. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court applies Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock to hold that parolees who presented themselves at a port of entry are governed by § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- A post-deprivation bond hearing satisfies due process where the government has a legitimate interest in detention based on recent criminal conduct, even absent a conviction.
- The government bears the burden of proving flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence at the bond hearing.
- The immigration judge must consider the detainee's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release if detention is not justified.
- The court orders specific procedural safeguards: 14-day deadline for hearing, 72-hour notice, right to counsel, right to appear, and a recorded proceeding.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the Eastern District of California's consistent application of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock to distinguish between arriving aliens subject to mandatory detention and parolees entitled to bond hearings under § 1226(a). It clarifies that while the statutory framework entitles such petitioners to a bond hearing, due process does not categorically require immediate release when the government identifies specific public safety concerns, such as a recent arrest for failing to comply with police commands. The decision balances the petitioner's liberty interest against the government's interest in detention by mandating a prompt, procedurally robust bond hearing with the burden on the government, rather than ordering release outright. This approach aligns with the court's prior rulings in Singh v. Chestnut and Martinez Hernandez v. Andrews, establishing a framework for post-deprivation process in similar cases.