Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Wilmar Eduardo RAMOS IXCOTOYAC, Case No.: 26-cv-0482-AGS-DDL Petitioner, 4 ORDER REQUIRING RETURN v. 5 John DOE, WARDEN, et al., 6 Respondents. 7 8 9 Unrepresented petitioner Wilmar Ramos Ixcotoyac seeks a writ of habeas corpus 10 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. (See ECF 1.) At this stage, 11 he need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See 12 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 13 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 14 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application 15 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, 16 the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not 17 cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But 18 “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify 19 summary dismissal[.]” Id. 20 Ramos Ixcotoyac’s petition is thin on details. He claims that he is “detained by 21 [Immigration and Customs Enforcement],” that he “has been held without a meaningful 22 bond hearing,” and that his continued detention “violates the Due Process Clause.” (ECF 3, 23 at 1 (emphasis added).) These allegations are missing some important details: the date his 24 detention began, the circumstances surrounding his detention, and the purported basis for 25 his custody. But his allegation that he hasn’t had a “meaningful” bond hearing at least 26 suggests that he was afforded a bond hearing only for the immigration judge to find it is 27 without jurisdiction on account of Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), 28 as immigration judges have often found since that case issued. 1 Construing the petition in the light most favorable to this unrepresented petitioner, 2 || this challenge is not so “frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal” and thus 3 ||merits a response. See Neiss, 114 F.4th at 1045. The two Courts of Appeals to address the 4 logic underpinning Yajure Hurtado disagreed about how to interpret the issue. Compare 5 || Castanon-Nava v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060, 1062 6 || (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding “on this preliminary [motion-to-stay] record” that plaintiffs 7 || who are “unlawfully already in the United States” are not “subject to mandatory detention 8 |}under § 1225(b)(2)(A)”), with Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, _ □□□□□ _, 9 2026 WL 323330, at *1 (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding that, under § 1225(b)(2)(A), 10 || petitioners who entered the United States “illegally many years ago” must “be detained” 11 || without a bond hearing). But most petitioners have nonetheless obtained habeas relief in 12 || functionally identical cases. See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, __ F. Supp. 3d. _, 13 || No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that, 14 || in “350” of the “362” opinions to address this issue, the petitioners “prevailed, either on a 15 || preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 160 different judges 16 sitting in about fifty different courts’). And a district court recently “vacate[d]” Yajure 17 || Hurtado—the Board of Immigration Appeals decision that respondents have regularly 18 ||relied on to mandatorily detain those in petitioner’s position. See Bautista v. Santacruz, 19 || No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, _ F. Supp. 3d__, 2026 WL 468284, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20 || 18, 2026). 21 So, by February 26, 2026, the government must answer the petition. Any reply by 22 || petitioner is due March 6, 2026. 23 || Dated: February 19, 2026 5 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 26 27 28