Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rigoberto Gomez Cardona filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, challenging his detention by immigration authorities. He alleged that he had resided in the United States since 2013 and that he had been detained since September 10, 2026, when he was arrested on his way to work. Respondents filed a return to the petition, and Cardona filed a traverse, placing the lawfulness of his continued detention before the court.
Cardona alleged that, at his request, Respondents had scheduled a bond hearing for September 18, 2026, but that he withdrew the request. Instead of pursuing a bond hearing, he argued that his detention was unlawful and sought immediate release from custody. After considering the parties' pleadings and the law, the court ruled on the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition, relying on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, which held that unadmitted non-citizens present in the interior of the United States are subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Although DHS makes the initial custody determination, a non-citizen subject to § 1226(a) can seek a bond hearing before an immigration judge and further review before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The court explained that § 1226(a) permits, but does not require, the government upon a warrant to arrest and detain an alien pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. On the facts alleged in the petition, the court found that Respondents did not violate Cardona's constitutional rights. Cardona admitted that his circumstances fell within the detention framework addressed in Rodriguez Vazquez, but he did not seek a bond hearing; he sought immediate release. The court concluded that he failed to allege any deprivation entitling him to that remedy.
The court distinguished Diaz Escalante v. LaRose, where release was granted because the petitioner had been detained without either a warrant or a finding that he was likely to escape. Here, by contrast, the alleged detention fit the § 1226 framework. The court therefore denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to close the file because the order concluded the litigation on this matter.
Key Takeaways
- Unadmitted non-citizens detained in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which permits arrest and detention pending a removal decision.
- A non-citizen detained under § 1226(a) can seek a bond hearing before an immigration judge and further administrative review, but is not automatically entitled to immediate release.
- A habeas petitioner who withdraws a request for a bond hearing and instead seeks immediate release must allege a specific constitutional deprivation beyond the fact of detention itself.
- Detention without a warrant or a finding of flight risk may support release, but detention consistent with § 1226's framework does not.
- The denial was without prejudice, and the order directed the Clerk of Court to close the file because it concluded the litigation on this matter.
Why It Matters
This order applies the Ninth Circuit's framework for immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and clarifies that the availability of a bond hearing is the primary procedural remedy for a non-citizen challenging custody. Habeas petitioners who bypass the bond-hearing process and seek immediate release face a substantial burden to allege a constitutional violation.
The decision also highlights the distinction between detention authorized under § 1226 and detention lacking basic safeguards, such as a warrant or a flight-risk finding, which may warrant immediate release.