Humberto Rodriguez Castro v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 6.) The Court agrees that the Immigra
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a non-citizen detained by ICE, who argued that an Immigration Judge erroneously found him subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and Matter of Yajure Hurtado. The court granted the petition in part, directing the Immigration Court to hold a new bond hearing where the judge may consider mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E) or permissive detention under § 1226(a), but denied the request to order release under § 1226(a) directly.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition in part to direct a new bond hearing“this Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it requests a new bond hearing.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the Immigration Judge's reliance on § 1225 and Yajure Hurtado was erroneous based on the court's prior holdings and the certified class action in the Central District of California. By directing a new hearing to consider the correct statutory provision (§ 1226(c)(1)(E)), the court provides the petitioner the procedural due process required to challenge the basis of his detention. |
Denying the petition in part regarding the specific request to order release under § 1226(a)“However, it DENIES the Petition the extent it requests this Court to order the Immigration Judge to consider Petitioner’s release under § 1226(a).” | agree with court The court denies this specific request because the petitioner may be subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(E) due to his pending assault charge. The court correctly refuses to bypass the administrative process or pre-determine that the petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention, instead directing the Immigration Judge to make that factual and legal determination at the new hearing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and logically consistent. It correctly distinguishes between the erroneous basis for detention (§ 1225) and the potentially valid basis (§ 1226(c)(1)(E)). It appropriately remands the issue to the Immigration Judge for a proper determination rather than deciding the merits of the § 1226(c)(1)(E) applicability itself, respecting the administrative process while ensuring the petitioner is not held under an invalid legal theory.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ CASTRO, Case No. 26-cv-01547-BAS-MSB 13 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 14 v. DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., (ECF No. 1) 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Petitioner Humberto Rodriguez Castro filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the Immigration Judge erroneously found him 21 subject to mandatory detention under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I & N Dec. 216 22 (BIA 2025). (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner requests a new bond hearing where the Immigration 23 Judge is ordered to consider Petitioner’s release under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id.) The 24 Government responds that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 25 § 1226(c)(1)(E) and the Laken Riley Act, and thus, the Petition should be denied. (ECF 26 No. 5.) Petitioner’s Traverse suggests that Petitioner may be subject to mandatory 27 detention under § 1226(c)(1)(E), but that the Immigration Judge erroneously found 28 Petitioner subject to mandatory detention under § 1225, and thus, a new bond hearing 1 should be ordered. (ECF No. 6.) The Court agrees that the Immigration Judge incorrectly 2 determined that the Immigration Court had no jurisdiction to consider bond under Yajure 3 Hurtado. However, the Court finds Petitioner may be subject to mandatory detention under 4 § 1226(c)(1)(E) and thus directs the Immigration Judge to make this determination. 5 I. LEGAL STANDARD 6 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 7 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 8 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 9 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 10 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 11 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 12 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 13 has standing to pursue this Petition. 14 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 15 Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally in 2002. (ECF 16 No. 1, ¶ 25.) He was not apprehended upon his arrival to the United States. (Id.) Petitioner 17 was arrested by local police in Utah for assaulting a police officer. (ECF No. 5.) Those 18 charges are currently pending in Utah. (Id.) 19 After his arrest by police in Utah, Petitioner was turned over to Immigration and 20 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for possible removal. The Department of Homeland 21 Security (“DHS”) transferred Petitioner to the Otay Mesa Detention Center. On May 11, 22 2026, an Otay Mesa Immigration Judge denied Petitioner bond, finding the Immigration 23 Court lacked jurisdiction to order bond pursuant to Yajure Hurtado, 29 I & N Dec. 216. 24 III. ANALYSIS 25 The Central District of California certified a class and essentially overruled Yajure 26 Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. 27 Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). Although the Ninth Circuit stayed and restricted application of that 28 class to only those located in the Central District of California, Maldonado Bautista v. U.S. 1 || Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), this Court has previously 2 || held in multiple cases that it agrees with the Court in Maldonado Bautista that an individual 3 Petitioner’s situation is not subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225. See, 4 |le.g., Gregorio v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-03322-BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5 || 17, 2025); Zayas v. Gordon, No. 26-cv-00237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL 266275 (S.D. Cal. 6 || Feb. 2, 2026); Trujillo v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00268-BAS-VET, 2026 WL 266496 (S.D. Cal. 7 || Feb. 2, 2026). 8 However, Petitioner may be subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 9 || 1226(c)(1)(E)GD, which pertains to an individual charged with assault on a law 10 |}enforcement officer. Since the Immigration Judge was unable to consider this possibility, 11 finding only that detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, this Court GRANTS 12 || the Petition to the extent it requests a new bond hearing. However, it DENIKS the Petition 13 the extent it requests this Court to order the Immigration Judge to consider Petitioner’s 14 release under § 1226(a). 15 CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 17 The Court directs the Immigration Court to hold a bond hearing for Petitioner 18 Humberto Rodriguez Castro (A# 221-468-385). . At that hearing, the Immigration Judge should not find that Petitioner is subject to mandatory 19 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or Yajure Hurtado, 29 1 & N Dec. 216 (BIA 0 2025). The Immigration Judge may, however, consider whether Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c)(1)(E) or permissive detention 21 under § 1226(a). 22 23 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATED: March 25, 2026 yatta Bahar 26 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 28 48