Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alberto Cuamani Cuaxiloa, a Mexican national, entered the United States without inspection in 2002 and lived in Virginia for more than two decades. He worked as a landscaper, cleaner, and mechanic before starting a general-contracting business in 2010. The record reflected no U.S. criminal history.
ICE arrested him during a targeted Virginia Beach operation in June 2026, charged him as removable, and transferred him to the Golden State Annex detention facility in California. He sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking for release or a bond hearing at which the government would have to justify continued custody. The government responded that his detention fell under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which permits a discretionary custody decision and bond consideration.
The Court’s Holding
The Eastern District granted the habeas petition in part. Under the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the court concluded that § 1226(a)—not a mandatory-detention provision—governed a person arrested inside the country after entering without inspection years earlier. The court emphasized that similarly situated people who had lived in the United States for years without immigration-system contact were not subject to automatic custody.
The remedy imposed a staged and expedited process. Within 48 hours, immigration officials must make an initial custody determination and either release Cuamani Cuaxiloa or decide that detention remains appropriate. If he remains detained and no arrest warrant exists, officials must immediately seek one and release him if it is denied. If a warrant issues, officials must provide a bond hearing within 10 days of the initial custody decision, with both sides permitted to address danger and flight risk. He and any counsel of record must receive at least 72 hours’ notice, he may appear with counsel, and the hearing must be recorded.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1226(a) governed the custody of a longtime resident arrested inside the United States, allowing individualized review rather than mandatory detention.
- The court required an initial custody determination within 48 hours, followed by prompt release or a defined path to a bond hearing.
- Continued detention without an arrest warrant required immigration officials to seek one immediately; denial would require release.
- The bond process must allow evidence and argument about danger and flight risk and provide advance notice, counsel participation, and a record of the hearing.
- A habeas court may tailor relief to cure both the absence of an initial custody decision and the absence of a substantive bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The order supplies a practical timetable for challenging ICE detention of people who entered without inspection long ago but were later arrested in the interior. For California immigration lawyers, the decision supports pressing separately for a prompt initial custody assessment, lawful warrant procedures, and a meaningful bond hearing rather than treating those protections as interchangeable.
The ruling also shows why a client’s history in the United States matters. Stable work, long residence, and lack of a criminal record can inform both the legal challenge to automatic detention and the factual presentation on danger, flight risk, and conditions of release.