Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angel Trujillo Lopez, appearing without a lawyer, petitioned the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus. He entered the United States without inspection at an unknown time, and the government's own exhibits show he has been here since at least 2006. He is married with six U.S. citizen children and is described as the financial support for his household. On August 8, 2026, U.S. Park Police arrested him in San Francisco for misdemeanor domestic battery and child endangerment; the order notes no indication that charges were filed. ICE then took him into custody and issued a notice to appear charging him as present without admission or parole.
ICE has held him since that date under the mandatory-detention provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), without a bond hearing. He argued that detention without a bond hearing violates due process and sought release. The government acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), rejected its reading of the statute, and conceded his detention falls under that decision. It still maintained that section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies and said he could seek a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. Because the Rodriguez Vazquez mandate had not yet issued, the magistrate judge took advisory notice of the ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Lopez's detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not section 1225(b), because Rodriguez Vazquez applies section 1226(a) to people who entered without inspection and are detained in the interior. Under section 1226(a) and its regulations, a detainee may ask an immigration judge for a bond hearing at any time before a removal order becomes final. The government never explained how Lopez, detained under a provision that does not permit bond hearings, was nonetheless entitled to one. The order also observes that the Board of Immigration Appeals held in Matter of Yajure Hurtado that immigration judges lack jurisdiction over bond requests from people held under section 1225(b)(2)(A), and the government offered no assurance that an immigration judge could hear his request.
On remedy, the magistrate judge reasoned that release is the typical remedy for unlawful executive detention and cited other Eastern District decisions ordering release where section 1225(b) was wrongly applied. The judge found that the government gave no lawful justification for the detention and that his due process rights were violated such that a bond hearing now would be constitutionally insufficient. The judge weighed about twenty years of residence with his family, a rap sheet showing a 2006 misdemeanor battery conviction and a 2011 misdemeanor reckless driving conviction, the apparent absence of charges from the recent arrest, and the government's failure to argue danger or flight risk.
The disposition has two parts. The judge denied the motion to appoint counsel, finding the interests of justice did not require it at this time. The judge otherwise only recommended that the petition be granted, that Lopez be released immediately, that any re-detention require at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under section 1226(a), and that judgment be entered and the case closed. The recommendation expressly does not address detention if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Key Takeaways
- This is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, not a final judgment; the petition remains pending until the district judge acts, and objections are due within three days of service.
- Only the denial of appointed counsel is an operative order; release, the re-detention conditions, and entry of judgment are all recommended.
- The magistrate judge treated Rodriguez Vazquez as controlling for interior arrestees who entered without inspection, even though the mandate had not yet issued.
- Release rather than a hearing was recommended because the government offered no lawful justification, a later hearing could not cure the due process violation, and the record showed long residence, family ties, limited misdemeanor history, and no argument of danger or flight risk.
- Any future re-detention would require seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing under section 1226(a), and detention after a final removal order is left open.
Why It Matters
The order shows how judges in this district are handling habeas petitions from people held under section 1225(b)(2)(A) after Rodriguez Vazquez, and it relies on other district rulings that ordered release instead of a remand for a hearing. Its reasoning is fact-specific, stressing the government's lack of justification and the petitioner's long residence and limited record, so it does not make release automatic in every such case.
As a magistrate judge's recommendation in a case without a reported opinion, it carries no precedential weight beyond whatever persuasive value its reasoning has. Its practical effect depends on whether the district judge adopts it, and it leaves the underlying removal proceedings and any later custody dispute open.