Jose Luis Alberto Panohaya Mediana v. Patrick DIVVER, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Diego Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1226(a) rather than § 122
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen who argued he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than being subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The court granted the petition in part, ordering respondents to provide a bond hearing within seven days and clarifying that the petitioner bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted in part“For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition and ORDERS that Respondents provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 1 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the respondents effectively conceded the petitioner was detained under § 1226(a) and had been denied a bond hearing. Given the concession and the statutory right to a bond hearing under § 1226(a), granting the petition to order a hearing is the appropriate legal remedy. The court also correctly rejected the respondents' attempt to impose a 'clear and convincing' standard of proof, applying the Ninth Circuit precedent that requires only a preponderance of the evidence. |
Request for costs and attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) denied without prejudice“That request is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner’s counsel may submit an appropriate EAJA fee application” | agree with court Denying the fee request without prejudice is procedurally appropriate as the case is not yet fully concluded regarding the compliance with the bond hearing order, and EAJA fees are typically adjudicated after a final judgment or upon a separate motion with proper documentation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit standard of proof for § 1226(a) bond hearings, rejects the government's attempt to raise the burden of proof, and orders the appropriate remedy (a bond hearing) based on the government's concession and controlling district court precedent. The court also appropriately addressed the timing of the hearing, prioritizing the urgency of the wrongful detention over the government's request for more time.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Jose Luis Alberto Panohaya Mediana, Case No.: 26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 Patrick, DIVVER, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, 15 [ECF No. 1] San Diego Field Office, Immigration and 16 Customs Enforcement; Todd M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and 17 Customs Enforcement; Kristi NOEM, 18 Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 19 HOMELAND SECURITY; Pamela 20 BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 21 IMMIGRATION REVIEW; Christopher 22 J. LAROSE, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Facility; 23 Respondents. 24 25 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF 26 No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition and 27 ORDERS that Respondents provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 28 1 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days. The Court vacates the hearing scheduled for 2 April 3, 2026. 3 BACKGROUND 4 Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection 5 twenty-three years ago. ECF No. 1, ¶ 7. On November 2, 2025, ICE detained Petitioner 6 and placed him in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Id. ¶ 8. Petitioner was 7 not provided with a bond hearing upon his detention. Id. ¶ 21. 8 Petitioner alleges that his detention without a bond hearing violates the Immigration 9 and Nationality Act. Id. ¶¶ 28-33. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his detention is 10 governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2), thereby entitling him to a bond 11 hearing. Id. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Petitioner requests an order requiring his release, or any other relief this Court deems 14 proper. Id. at 7. Respondents do not oppose an Order granting a bond hearing for Petitioner. 15 ECF No. 4. Thus, Respondents have “effectively concede[ed]” that Petitioner is detained 16 under § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2) and has been unlawfully denied a bond hearing. 17 See Vardanyan v. Noem, No. 5:26-CV-00423-MRA-RAO, 2026 WL 383341, at *2 (C.D. 18 Cal. Feb. 11, 2026). 19 The Court acknowledges that Petitioner’s time to file a traverse has not yet passed. 20 However, upon review of the Petition and Response, the Court finds that additional 21 argument is not necessary to inform its decision. 22 I. Standard of Proof 23 While Respondents “do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing 24 to be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a),” they go on to specify that, at such hearing, 25 “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they are 26 not a danger to the community or a flight risk.” ECF No. 4. This overstates Petitioner’s 27 burden. The Ninth Circuit has described the bond hearing requirements of § 1226(a) as 28 follows: 1 Under § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, a detainee may request a bond hearing before an IJ at any time before a 2 removal order becomes final. If at this hearing the detainee 3 demonstrates by the preponderance of the evidence that he is not a threat to national security, a danger to the community at large, 4 likely to abscond, or otherwise a poor bail risk, the IJ will order 5 his release. 6 Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation 7 marks and citations omitted). 8 Accordingly, a bond hearing ordered in compliance with § 1226(a) requires only that 9 Petitioner demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a flight risk or 10 danger to the community. 11 II. Remedy 12 Given Petitioner’s allegations, a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy in this case. 13 Section 1226 requires only consideration of release on bond, and a bond hearing is 14 therefore sufficient to correct the unopposed violations outlined in the Petition. See 8 15 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Garcia v. Noem, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding 16 a bond hearing, rather than release, to be the appropriate remedy where Petitioner was 17 wrongfully subjected to mandatory detention without a hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 18 1225(b)(2) rather than provided a bond hearing under § 1226(a)); Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, 19 --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2998361, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025) (same). If 20 Respondents fail to comply with this order, Petitioner may seek further relief from the 21 Court at that time. 1 22 CONCLUSION 23 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 24 25 26 1 In his prayer for relief, Petitioner requests an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s 27 fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. ECF No. 1, at 7. That request is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner’s counsel may submit an appropriate EAJA fee application 28 1 e Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of this Order.” At the hearing, 3 Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating by the preponderance of the 4 evidence that he is not a danger to the community or flight risk; 5 e Respondents are ORDERED to FILE a Notice of Compliance within seven 6 (7) days of the hearing confirming that Petitioner was provided with a bond 7 hearing and stating whether Petitioner was released on bond; 8 e Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention; 10 e The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner's favor and close this 1] case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: March 25, 2026 2 sf 1D Hon. athe Cae 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || 27 ||* Respondents request 14 days to provide such a hearing. ECF No. 4, at 1 n.1. However, 28 Petitioner is presently wrongfully detained without a bond hearing. The seriousness and urgency of this violation demands prompt resolution.