Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Reynaldo Ramirez-Mejicanos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States in October 2016 as an unaccompanied minor at age eleven. Immigration authorities detained him for about one month, then released him on his own recognizance to his father. His immigration case was terminated without prejudice after a November 2021 hearing he says he did not know about while still a minor. He is married to a U.S. citizen, has two U.S. citizen children, holds an approved I-360 petition, and is pursuing asylum and cancellation of removal.
On January 15, 2025, he was convicted in California state court of felony second-degree robbery under Penal Code § 211 and sentenced to three years in prison. When he was released from state custody on March 12, 2026, ICE re-detained him. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition and a motion for counsel on March 30, 2026. The district court denied a temporary restraining order without prejudice on May 4, 2026, finding mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and that seven weeks was not yet unreasonably prolonged, then referred the matter to the magistrate judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge first held that Ramirez-Mejicanos is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), not § 1225(b)(2) as an applicant for admission. The court relied on Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, in which the Ninth Circuit held that noncitizens present without admission but apprehended in the interior are governed by § 1226, and noted that most courts nationwide reject the government's contrary reading.
On due process, the court found a protected liberty interest in freedom from detention and applied Mathews v. Eldridge. Seven months of detention without a final removal order, with possible BIA and Ninth Circuit review still ahead, exceeds the periods discussed in Demore v. Kim. The private interest is substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation is high without any bond or custody redetermination hearing, and the government's interest in detention without a hearing is low because hearings are routine and impose minimal cost.
The magistrate judge therefore recommends granting the habeas petition and ordering respondents to provide a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an immigration judge or neutral decisionmaker within fourteen days of adoption of the findings and recommendations, with the government bearing the burden by clear and convincing evidence on danger or flight risk, at least seven days' notice, counsel permitted if present, a status report within seven days of adoption, and a clerk directive to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and close the case. By separate order, the court grants in forma pauperis status and denies appointment of counsel without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) retain a due process right to a bond hearing when detention becomes unreasonably prolonged, even though the Ninth Circuit has not definitively resolved the issue.
- Seven months of detention without a final removal order can exceed the periods contemplated in Demore v. Kim and violate due process absent an individualized flight-risk or dangerousness determination.
- Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock confirms that noncitizens apprehended in the interior are detained under § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), rejecting the government's expanded applicant-for-admission theory.
- Under Mathews, the strong private liberty interest and high risk of erroneous deprivation outweigh the government's minimal burden in providing routine bond hearings.
- The recommended hearing includes safeguards: fourteen days from adoption, seven days' notice, possible counsel presence, a government clear-and-convincing burden, a status report, and entry of judgment in favor of petitioner.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to district-court authority in the Ninth Circuit holding that prolonged mandatory detention under § 1226(c) without a bond hearing can violate due process. It is significant for noncitizens with criminal convictions who remain detained while pursuing relief from removal: mandatory detention does not eliminate the constitutional requirement of an individualized hearing once detention becomes unreasonable.
The ruling also reinforces the Ninth Circuit's rejection of efforts to reclassify long-term residents as applicants for admission under § 1225(b)(2), and its recommended safeguards—especially the clear-and-convincing burden and notice requirements—give detained noncitizens meaningful procedural protection.