Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anselmo Castillo Nieves, an immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of California against Christopher Chestnut and other respondents. The court construed the petition as challenging the statutory authority for his detention and ordered respondents to show cause why it should not be granted. Respondents filed a response opposing relief.
Respondents argued that because petitioner is an applicant for admission, he is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and is not entitled to a bond hearing or release. The dispute therefore turned on which detention statute governs: section 1225(b)(2)(A), which respondents read to foreclose any bond hearing, or section 1226(a), under which the court ultimately ordered one. The order does not describe petitioner's immigration history, manner of entry, or length of detention, so those facts are not addressed here.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition. It noted that the Ninth Circuit rejected respondents' argument in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1193 (9th Cir. 2026), and held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies to noncitizens in petitioner's circumstances. The order is brief and rests on that circuit authority rather than offering a fresh analysis of the statutory text. It frames the question as one of statutory authority and does not discuss any constitutional claim.
Respondents must give petitioner a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker under section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations within ten days of the order. They must immediately give him a copy of the order and 72 hours' notice of the hearing in a language he can understand. He may be represented by an attorney, and respondents may extend the deadline at his request so he can obtain one; any attorney must also receive 72 hours' notice. In setting the amount of bond and any alternative conditions of release in lieu of detention without bond, the decisionmaker must consider petitioner's financial circumstances. If no hearing is held within ten days, respondents must release him.
The Clerk was directed to close the case, terminate pending motions as moot, enter judgment for petitioner, and serve the detention facility with the order. Because judgment was entered and the case closed, the ruling is a grant of habeas relief rather than a dismissal with leave to amend. The order does not decide whether bond will be set or granted, which is left to the hearing. A footnote states that it does not address when respondents may detain petitioner if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Key Takeaways
- A district court in the Eastern District of California treated Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock as controlling and rejected the government's position that an applicant for admission may be held under section 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing.
- The relief is a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker within ten days, not an order of release; whether bond is set or granted is left open.
- The hearing must come with 72 hours' notice in a language the detainee understands, the opportunity for counsel, and consideration of financial circumstances in setting bond and alternative conditions.
- If the government does not provide the hearing within ten days, it must release the petitioner.
- The order expressly does not address detention if the petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order and carries no precedential weight of its own; its force comes from the Ninth Circuit authority it applies. Its value is as an example of how courts in the district are applying Rodriguez Vazquez to petitioners the government treats as applicants for admission, and of the concrete procedures that accompany a bond-hearing remedy. Detainees and counsel should read the specific remedial terms, namely the deadline, notice, language access and financial considerations, as what this court required here, not as a general rule.
Practitioners should note the narrowness of the ruling. The order does not describe the petitioner's facts, does not discuss other grounds for detention, and leaves the bond decision itself to the neutral decisionmaker. The ten-day deadline, with release as the consequence of noncompliance, gives the order practical enforcement, but the footnote reserving detention after an executable final removal order shows that question remains open.