Jose Raymundo Cruz Mejia v. Warden of Imperial Regional Facility
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — As a 27 noncitizen who, at the time of his detention, had been present in the United States for almost 28 ten years, Petitioner wa
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) who argued he was subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) based on his length of presence in the United States. The court granted the petition, finding the petitioner was wrongfully detained under § 1225(b)(2) and ordering an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted“Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the distinction between 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (applicable to arriving aliens) and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (applicable to aliens already in the country) as established in Jennings v. Rodriguez. Given the petitioner's ten-year presence in the United States, the statutory framework of § 1226(a) applies, which includes the right to a bond hearing. The respondent also conceded this entitlement in the Return. |
Order for individualized bond hearing within seven days“Respondent shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the date of this order.” | agree with court Once the court determined the petitioner was subject to § 1226(a), the requirement for a bond hearing follows from the statute and Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018)). The seven-day timeframe is a reasonable procedural directive to ensure prompt relief. |
Prohibition on denying bond based on mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)“At any such hearing, the immigration judge SHALL NOT deny Petitioner bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention.” | agree with court This instruction is consistent with the court's finding that the petitioner is not subject to § 1225(b)(2). Therefore, the mandatory detention provisions of that statute cannot be used to deny bond in a § 1226(a) hearing. |
Requirement to consider alternative conditions and ability to pay“The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of release and Petitioner’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines bond is appropriate.” | agree with court This aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent in Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017), which requires consideration of alternative conditions and ability to pay in bond hearings under § 1226(a). |
Requirement to make complete record of bond hearing available“Respondent SHALL make a complete record of the bond hearing available to Petitioner and his counsel.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural requirement to ensure due process and the ability to appeal or seek further review, supported by Ninth Circuit precedent in Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775 (9th Cir. 2024). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable statutory framework based on the petitioner's length of presence in the United States. It relies on binding Supreme Court precedent (Jennings v. Rodriguez) and consistent Ninth Circuit authority to support its conclusion. The respondent's concession in the Return further supports the outcome. The reasoning is direct and applies the law correctly to the facts recited.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE RAYMUNDO CRUZ MEJIA, Case No.: 26cv0989-LL-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL FACILITY, 15 [ECF No. 1] Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Raymundo Cruz Mejia’s Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”)], alleging that he is wrongfully 19 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and that he is a member of the Bond Eligible Class 20 of Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 25cv1873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal.), who are deemed to 21 be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Pet. at 4–6. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus 22 directing Respondent to provide him with a bond hearing. Id. at 5. 23 Respondent filed a Return in which he acknowledges that Petitioner is detained 24 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond hearing 25 be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 6. 26 The Court finds Petitioner is wrongfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). As a 27 noncitizen who, at the time of his detention, had been present in the United States for almost 28 ten years, Petitioner was and is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which states that a noncitizen 1 “may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the [noncitizen] is to be 2 removed from the United States.” ECF No. 1-3 at 1; 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). By contrast, 3 8 U.S.C § 1225(b) applies to noncitizens arriving at the border or who very recently entered 4 the United States. See Beltran v. Noem, No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at 5 *4–7 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). As the Supreme Court explained, the government may 6 “detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2),” 7 while § 1226(a) allows the government to “detain certain aliens already in the county 8 pending the outcome of removal proceedings.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 9 (2018) (emphasis added). The Court adopts its reasoning stated in Beltran v. Noem on this 10 issue. Id. at *4–7. 11 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 12 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. 13 2. Respondent shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 14 before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the 15 date of this order. 16 a. At any such hearing, the immigration judge SHALL NOT deny 17 Petitioner bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires 18 mandatory detention. 19 b. The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of 20 release and Petitioner’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines bond 21 is appropriate. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990–91 (9th 22 Cir. 2017). 23 c. Respondent SHALL make a complete record of the bond hearing 24 available to Petitioner and his counsel. See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 25 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Singh, 638 F.3d at 1200). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / l 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this 2 || case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: April 22, 2026 MO 5 Je J 6 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28