Santos G. Cantarero Sorto v. Warden of Imperial Regional Facility
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — He was subsequently transferred to the Imperial Regional De
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition from a detained non-citizen arguing he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The court granted the petition in part, ordering the respondent to provide a bond hearing within seven days and prohibiting detention based on § 1225(b)(2).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted in part“the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition and ORDERS that Respondents provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days.” | agree with court The order recites that the respondent filed a notice of non-opposition, effectively conceding that the petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) and was unlawfully denied a bond hearing. Under the conceded facts, the legal conclusion that a bond hearing is required follows from the statute. The choice of remedy (hearing vs. release) is supported by the cited district court precedent. |
Order to provide bond hearing within seven days“Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of this Order;” | agree with court Given the concession of error by the respondent, ordering a prompt hearing is a standard and appropriate equitable remedy to cure the statutory violation. |
Prohibition on denying bond based on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)“Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention;” | agree with court This order enforces the court's determination that § 1226(a) governs the petitioner's detention, preventing the respondent from relying on the conceded-invalid statutory basis for mandatory detention. |
Prohibition on transfer from district pending bond hearing“Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner from this district pending his bond hearing;” | agree with court This is a standard jurisdictional and practical measure to ensure the court retains control over the compliance with its order and the petitioner remains available for the hearing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally straightforward. It relies on the respondent's concession (notice of non-opposition) to establish the legal error. It then applies consistent district court precedent to determine the appropriate remedy. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a case resolved on concession.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANTOS G. CANTARERO SORTO, Case No.: 26-CV-1803-GPC-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL FACILITY, 15 [ECF No. 1] Respondent. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. For the 18 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition and ORDERS that 19 Respondents provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 20 1226(a) within seven (7) days. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner is a citizen and national of El Salvador who entered the United States 23 without inspection on or about December 17, 2012. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”) at 6, Ex. A. He 24 resided in the interior of the United States continuously since then. Id. at 6. In February 25 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers detained Petitioner. Id. 26 at 4. He was in removal proceedings at that time, has no criminal record, and has cooperated 27 with DHS throughout his proceedings. Id. The ICE officers detained Petitioner in Calexico, 28 1 California. Id. He was subsequently transferred to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, 2 where he remains detained. Id. 3 Petitioner alleges that his detention without a bond hearing violates the Immigration 4 and Nationality Act (“INA”). Id. at 4-6. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his detention is 5 governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2). Id. 6 Petitioner requests an order requiring his release, an order for a constitutionally 7 adequate bond hearing in the alternative, or any other relief this Court deems proper. Id. at 8 4-6. Respondents have filed a notice of non-opposition as to a bond hearing for Petitioner. 9 ECF No. 4. Thus, Respondents have “effectively concede[ed]” that Petitioner is detained 10 under § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2) and has been unlawfully denied a bond hearing. 11 See Vardanyan v. Noem, No. 5:26-CV-00423-MRA-RAO, 2026 WL 383341, at *2 (C.D. 12 Cal. Feb. 11, 2026). 13 DISCUSSION 14 Given Petitioner’s allegations, a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy in this case. 15 Section 1226 requires only consideration of release on bond, and a bond hearing is 16 therefore sufficient to correct the unopposed violations outlined in the Petition. See 8 17 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Garcia v. Noem, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding 18 a bond hearing, rather than release, to be the appropriate remedy where Petitioner was 19 wrongfully subjected to mandatory detention without a hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 20 1225(b)(2) rather than provided a bond hearing under § 1226(a)); Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, 21 --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2998361, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025) (same). If 22 Respondents fail to comply with this order, Petitioner may seek further relief from the 23 Court at that time. 24 CONCLUSION 25 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 26 • Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 27 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of this Order; 28 1 e Respondents are ORDERED to FILE a Notice of Compliance within seven 2 (7) days of the hearing confirming that Petitioner was provided with a bond 3 hearing and stating whether Petitioner was released on bond; 4 e Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention; 6 e Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner from this district pending his 7 bond hearing; 8 e The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner's favor and close this 9 case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: March 27, 2026 73 Sf 12 Hon. athe Cee 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28