Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Wagner Romero Curruchich Tumux, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States on a temporary agricultural work permit in 2018 and overstayed. ICE detained him in December 2025, and a Notice to Appear was issued on December 29, 2025. An immigration judge denied a change in custody status on January 5, 2026, finding petitioner a flight risk. On May 18, 2026, an immigration judge ordered petitioner removed; that order is currently on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release on September 3, 2026. Respondent opposed both but conceded that Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), compels a finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs petitioner's detention.
This is petitioner's second habeas petition before this court. In the prior case (No. 2:26-cv-00670-DAD-CSK), the court adopted a magistrate judge's findings and denied relief on August 25, 2026. That decision rejected petitioner's arguments that his detention had become prolonged beyond six months and that due process required a second bond hearing, citing Espinoza-Gallo v. Chestnut and Caria Valenzuela v. Warden. The court also held that at an initial § 1226(a) bond hearing, the noncitizen bears the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence, per Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022). The current petition raises a new issue: petitioner's underlying mental health based on a medical evaluation conducted after the first habeas case was decided.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order and denied the habeas petition without prejudice. The court held that because petitioner's appeal of the removal order remains pending before the BIA, the removal order is not final under 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a) and petitioner remains detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1231. The court found petitioner's argument for release based on medical conditions unpersuasive: the record does not suggest he is at risk of significant harm meriting immediate release, and such claims challenge the conditions of confinement rather than the fact or duration of detention. Citing Malakhov v. Scott and Salazargarza v. Semaia, the court held that claims of inadequate medical care cannot be brought via a § 2241 habeas petition. The court directed that petitioner may seek relief for medical care concerns through a civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The denial without prejudice was based on concerns regarding the length of petitioner's time in immigration custody. The court did not reach the merits of whether prolonged detention under § 1226(a) might eventually warrant relief, leaving that question open for a future petition. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A pending appeal to the BIA renders a removal order non-final, so detention continues under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than the post-removal statute § 1231.
- Claims challenging the adequacy of medical care in immigration detention attack conditions of confinement, not the fact or duration of detention, and cannot be brought via a § 2241 habeas petition.
- A noncitizen detained under § 1226(a) bears the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence at an initial bond hearing; due process does not require the government to bear the burden by clear and convincing evidence.
- Due process does not categorically require a second bond hearing under § 1226(a) where the petitioner has already received an individualized bond hearing and has not pursued a direct appeal or requested a new hearing based on materially changed circumstances under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e).
- A habeas petition denied without prejudice preserves the petitioner's ability to refile if detention continues to lengthen or circumstances materially change.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the procedural gatekeeping function of habeas corpus in immigration detention cases, clarifying that § 2241 is not a vehicle for conditions-of-confinement claims such as inadequate medical care. By requiring such claims to proceed as civil rights actions under § 1331, the court maintains the traditional distinction between challenges to the legality of detention and challenges to its conditions. The ruling also applies Ninth Circuit precedent on burden allocation at § 1226(a) bond hearings and the finality of removal orders pending BIA appeal, providing a clear roadmap for detainees and practitioners in the Eastern District of California. The without-prejudice dismissal signals judicial concern about prolonged detention while respecting the exhaustion and procedural requirements that structure immigration habeas litigation.