Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angel Guaman Apullun filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. The petition’s first count presented a statutory claim about which detention provision governed his custody. The court explained that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended inside the United States are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), citing the Ninth Circuit’s Rodriguez Vazquez decision.
The court also relied on its earlier decisions involving noncitizens who had lived in the United States for varying periods without admission. Those decisions recognized detention under § 1226(a) during removal proceedings and entitlement to a pre-deprivation bond hearing. On October 9, 2026, the court told the parties it was considering deciding the habeas petition alongside the restraining-order motion and asked whether either side objected. It specifically directed respondents to identify factual or legal differences from Alvarez Maciel and Barajas Ortiz.
Respondents opposed the motion on October 13, maintaining that § 1225(b)(2)(A) governed, but they identified no significant factual or legal distinction from those earlier cases and did not object to a ruling on the petition. Because Guaman Apullun was proceeding without counsel and would receive the relief requested, the court declined to wait for a reply that would delay that relief.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both the habeas petition and the temporary-restraining-order motion as to Count One. It found that respondents had offered no new legal arguments and no material distinction from its prior decisions, and adopted the reasons stated in Zuniga Cruz. Following that decision, the court held that the proper remedy for respondents’ failure to provide a statutorily compliant bond hearing was Guaman Apullun’s immediate release. A footnote explained that resolving the statutory claim made it unnecessary to address additional grounds raised in the petition.
The operative order required respondents to release Guaman Apullun immediately and barred additional restrictions, such as electronic monitoring, unless necessity was determined at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing. Respondents also had to return his documents and possessions upon release and file a notice confirming compliance within three days. If the government sought to detain him again, it had to provide a bond hearing under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8), at which he would bear the burden of showing that he was neither a flight risk nor a risk to community safety.
The order expressly did not decide the circumstances permitting detention if Guaman Apullun became subject to an executable final removal order and received notice of it. A separate pending motion, Document 3, was denied as moot. The clerk was directed to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility, enter judgment for Guaman Apullun, and close the case. Thus, the disposition was a merits grant of the statutory habeas claim and final judgment, not merely temporary relief while the petition remained pending.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated interior apprehension of a noncitizen present without admission as governed by discretionary detention under § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Respondents’ failure to identify a material distinction from the court’s earlier detention decisions supported simultaneous resolution of the restraining-order motion and the habeas petition.
- The remedy for the missing statutorily compliant bond hearing was immediate release rather than an order simply requiring a hearing while custody continued.
- Any future restrictions required a necessity determination at a later hearing, and any government effort to re-detain Guaman Apullun required the specified bond-hearing process.
- The court left the petition’s additional grounds and detention after an executable final removal order unresolved while directing judgment for the petitioner and closure of the case.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how this court applied its developing body of immigration-detention rulings to reach a final habeas disposition when the government repeated previously rejected statutory arguments without identifying case-specific distinctions. Its procedural handling also mattered: the court gave the parties an opportunity to address simultaneous resolution, then avoided waiting for a pro se reply because doing so would postpone relief.
The relief was carefully bounded. Immediate release ended the detention challenged through Count One, but the order preserved the possibility of later custody restrictions or re-detention through specified procedures. It also avoided deciding additional claims or the distinct circumstances surrounding an executable final removal order, making the scope of the judgment important to understanding what was and was not resolved.