Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pedro Anibal Fletes Vargas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 2, 2026, challenging his detention at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. He had previously been admitted to the United States under Nicaraguan Humanitarian Parole, which expired in February 2026. He was arrested on July 14, 2026, and was currently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center when the petition was filed.
Fletes Vargas alleged that an Immigration Judge refused to conduct a bond hearing on the ground that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to hold such a hearing. He sought release from custody pending the outcome of his immigration proceedings or, in the alternative, a bond hearing at which his release could be considered. The Government opposed the petition, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) because the detention arose from the Department of Homeland Security's decision to commence removal proceedings, and that the petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court’s Holding
The court first addressed jurisdiction and rejected the Government's argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) barred review. Relying on Supreme Court precedent interpreting the provision narrowly, the court explained that Section 1252(g) applies only to three discrete actions: the decision to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. Because Fletes Vargas was not challenging any of those actions but rather sought only release from custody or a bond hearing, the jurisdictional bar did not apply.
On the merits, the court found that Fletes Vargas had not met his burden of demonstrating that his custody violated the Constitution or laws of the United States. The court noted that his argument for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was conclusory and unsupported by legal authority, and that whether a noncitizen is an applicant for admission is not dispositive of whether the noncitizen falls under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(2) or 1226(a). The court also rejected his claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments as conclusory and unsupported. The petition was denied and the case was ordered closed.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions challenging immigration detention when the petitioner is not contesting the decision to commence removal proceedings, the adjudication of the case, or the execution of a removal order.
- A detainee seeking a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) must provide a sufficient evidentiary and legal basis demonstrating entitlement to relief; conclusory assertions without supporting authority are insufficient.
- The court found that whether a noncitizen qualifies as an applicant for admission is not dispositive of whether they fall under the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or the discretionary detention provisions of § 1226(a).
- Constitutional claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments challenging immigration detention must be supported by specific legal arguments and evidence; bare assertions will not satisfy the habeas burden under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the narrow scope of the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), confirming that federal courts retain habeas jurisdiction over detention challenges that do not directly attack the commencement, adjudication, or execution of removal proceedings. At the same time, it underscores the significant burden detainees face when challenging mandatory detention, particularly when their petitions lack developed legal arguments or evidentiary support.
The ruling also highlights the ongoing tension between mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and the availability of bond hearings under § 1226(a), an issue that continues to generate litigation in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez.