Yesenia Carolina Reyes Hernandez v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1226(a)’s discretionary detention f
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) who argued she should be subject to the discretionary detention framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court granted the petition, finding that noncitizens residing in the interior of the United States are not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) and are therefore entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“In line with this Court’s previous rulings, the Court finds Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and grants the Petition.” | agree with court The court relies on its own precedent (Garcia v. Noem) and the concession of the respondents to determine that the statutory scheme of § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to noncitizens residing in the interior. This aligns with the legal principle that § 1225(b)(2) applies to those apprehended at or arriving at the border, while § 1226(a) applies to those in removal proceedings who are not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The court's application of the law to the facts (interior resident) is consistent with the cited authority. |
Ordering an individualized bond hearing within 14 days“Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before the Immigration Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order.” | agree with court This is the standard equitable remedy for a successful habeas petition challenging mandatory detention where the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). The timeframe is reasonable and consistent with similar orders in the district. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but relies on binding district court precedent (Garcia v. Noem) and the respondents' concession to reach the correct legal conclusion. It correctly identifies the applicable statutory framework and applies it to the petitioner's status as an interior resident. The reasoning is sufficient for a district court order granting a habeas petition based on established precedent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 26cv1910 DMS VET YESENIA CAROLINA REYES 12 HERNANDEZ, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, 16 Department of Homeland Security; PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the United 17 States; TODD LYONS, in his official 18 capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 19 WARDEN OF OTAY MESA 20 DETENTION CENTER, 21 Respondents. 22 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Pet., 23 ECF No. 1.) Respondents filed a Return to the Petition. (Return, ECF No. 4.) Petitioner 24 did not file a Traverse. Having considered the parties’ briefs, the relevant legal authority, 25 and the record, the Court grants the Petition. 26 Petitioner entered the country without inspection on November 25, 2008. (Pet. ¶ 27 29.) She was placed in removal proceedings on March 12, 2023 and charged with 28 1 |}inadmissibility for entering the United States without inspection. Ud. § 28.) She is now 2 being mandatorily detained without a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) at 3 ||the Otay Mesa Detention Center. (Ud. 9 29-31; Return 1.) Petitioner contends that 4 || because she was residing within the United States when she was charged as inadmissible, 5 ||she should instead be subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)’s discretionary detention framework. 6 || (Pet. 34.) Respondents maintain that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 7 || § 1225(b)(2) but concedes that this Court and others in this District have generally found 8 ||noncitizens residing in the interior do not fall under § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory detention 9 ||scheme. (Return 1—2 (collecting cases).) Indeed, the facts, claims, and arguments in this 10 are similar to those presented in the Court’s previous decisions, including Garcia v. 11 || Noem. 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2025). In line with this Court’s previous 12 |/rulings, the Court finds Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and grants 13 || the Petition. 14 Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner 15 ||before the Immigration Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order. 16 || Respondents are further ordered to file a Status Report within twenty-one (21) days of this 17 Order’s entry, confirming Petitioner received a bond hearing and the outcome of that 18 || hearing. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: April 21, 2026 2» 2 osm Sod Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28