Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Francisco Sanchez Sandoval, a citizen and national of Mexico, filed this habeas petition through counsel on October 6, 2026, challenging his continued immigration detention and seeking a new bond hearing or immediate release. He had been detained since March 25, 2026, when the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear charging him as removable. On June 10, 2026, an immigration judge denied a continuance, deemed relief waived, and ordered him removed to Mexico; his appeal and motion to remand remain pending.
This was Sandoval's second habeas challenge to his detention. In the earlier case, the court granted the prior petition in part on June 10, 2026, ordering an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and later granted his unopposed motion to enforce. At the June 30, 2026 hearing, the immigration judge denied bond in a reasoned decision, finding Sandoval had not shown he was not a danger and affirmatively finding him a flight risk. His appeal of that decision remains pending, and no further individualized custody review has occurred.
Sandoval argued that nearly seven months of detention without an individual merits hearing, changed circumstances underlying the flight-risk finding, an old incident supporting the dangerousness finding, his release plan, and his medical condition made continued detention unconstitutional. Respondents defended the bond hearing, invoked exhaustion, and argued detention conditions were outside habeas. Sandoval clarified he sought not to reweigh the immigration judge's evidence but to decide whether due process permitted continued detention without further individualized review.
The Court’s Holding
United States Magistrate Judge John D. Early denied the petition, concluding Sandoval had not carried his burden under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to show custody in violation of federal rights. Because his removal order was not final, detention remained governed by § 1226(a). The court applied the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors and held that due process does not entitle a noncitizen detained under § 1226(a) to a second bond hearing at which the government bears the burden by clear and convincing evidence.
Relying on Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, the court explained that detention length alone cannot resolve the due process inquiry. Sandoval had received a bond hearing, and his detention had become prolonged at least partly because he challenged the removal order. Further bond hearings were available upon materially changed circumstances, but he presented no evidence that he had requested one or that the procedure was unavailable, and his claim that a deteriorating medical condition had gone untreated likewise lacked support.
The court found the government's interest in enforcing immigration laws significant and held that existing procedures were adequate: Sandoval was represented by counsel, could challenge his detention, and could appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. It ordered judgment denying the petition with prejudice while expressly preserving future claims based on changed circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- The length of immigration detention alone did not establish a due process violation without considering the procedures already received and those still available.
- Rodriguez Diaz controlled because Sandoval had received an individualized bond hearing and could seek another upon materially changed circumstances.
- Sandoval supplied no evidence that he had requested a changed-circumstances hearing, that such a hearing was unavailable, or that his asserted medical condition had gone untreated.
- Representation by counsel, an opportunity to contest detention, and an appeal to the BIA supported the conclusion that existing procedures adequately protected against erroneous deprivation.
- The petition was denied with prejudice, but the order expressly allowed future claims in an appropriate forum if circumstances changed.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Ninth Circuit precedent to reject a prolonged-detention claim where the petitioner had already obtained court-ordered bond review but had not shown that the administrative mechanism for changed-circumstances review was pursued or unavailable. It distinguishes a request for additional process from a request to second-guess how an immigration judge weighed the evidence, and places the burden on the habeas petitioner to substantiate both procedural inadequacy and asserted medical developments.
The ruling resolves this petition rather than permanently foreclosing all future detention challenges. Its express changed-circumstances reservation preserves the possibility of later claims in an appropriate forum, while the denial with prejudice ends the present request for a new bond hearing or immediate release.