Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Christopher Guevara-Ayala, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection on an unknown date. On February 20, 2026, he was arrested by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police for state drug trafficking and possession offenses. On March 20, 2026, custody was transferred to ICE, which issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (lack of valid entry document) and § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (presence without admission or parole). The NTA did not charge inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(2) for controlled substance offenses. An immigration judge ordered removal on June 25, 2026; an appeal to the BIA is pending. Petitioner filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition on September 2, 2026, challenging his detention. Respondents argued mandatory detention applied under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A) based on a state court probable cause finding for drug trafficking, asserting the government reasonably relied on it to conclude he was an illicit trafficker under § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i).
The court addressed the dispute on the record described in the opinion. Allegations are presented as allegations, and the procedural posture controls what the ruling establishes. The result therefore turns on the motion and evidence actually before the court, not on a final resolution of every claim in the underlying litigation overall.
The Court’s Holding
The Court recommends granting the petition as to Claim One. It holds that mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(A) requires an administrative charge of inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(2) as a prerequisite. Because the NTA charged only § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)—neither of which triggers mandatory detention—and did not reference any drug trafficking offense or § 1182(a)(2) ground, the government may not mandatorily detain Petitioner under § 1226(c). Instead, Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a), which entitles him to a bond hearing at the outset of detention under 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1). The Court recommends a post-deprivation bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of adoption, with Petitioner bearing the burden to show he is not a flight risk or danger to the community. Claims Two and Four are not addressed; Claim Three (conditions of confinement) is dismissed as improper in a habeas proceeding.
The magistrate judge recommended relief; the recommendation was not itself a final district-court judgment. It proposed a bond hearing within 14 days after adoption and allowed seven days for objections.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A) requires the government to charge the noncitizen with an offense covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) in the Notice to Appear or provide separate notice and an opportunity to challenge the basis for mandatory detention; a state court probable cause finding alone is insufficient.
- Where the NTA charges only entry-related grounds under § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), the detainee is held under § 1226(a) and is entitled to a bond hearing.
- The proper remedy for the failure to provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a) is a post-deprivation bond hearing, not immediate release, where detention follows state criminal proceedings.
- At the initial bond hearing under § 1226(a), the detainee bears the burden of proving he is not a flight risk or danger to the community when there has been no prior release and no finding of prolonged detention.
- Conditions-of-confinement claims must be brought in a civil rights action, not a habeas corpus proceeding.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the procedural safeguard that the government must formally charge a noncitizen with a § 1182(a)(2) offense in the charging document to trigger mandatory detention under § 1226(c). It aligns with a growing consensus in the Eastern District of California and other courts that DHS cannot rely solely on external law enforcement records or probable cause findings to justify mandatory detention without proper notice in the NTA. The ruling clarifies that interior apprehensions of noncitizens present without admission fall under § 1226(a), not § 1225, preserving the right to a bond hearing. The recommended remedy—a prompt bond hearing with the detainee bearing the initial burden—balances the government’s interest in detention with the noncitizen’s due process rights.
Practitioners should distinguish the recommended disposition from an adopted order and track any later district-judge ruling.