Jose Luis Sierra Hernandez v. Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — As a 2 noncitizen who, at the time of his detention, had been present in t
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Jose Luis Sierra Hernandez, who alleged he was wrongfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) despite being eligible for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court granted the petition and ordered respondents to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 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 identified that a noncitizen present in the United States for more than twenty years is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), consistent with the distinction drawn in Jennings v. Rodriguez. Respondents acknowledged the petitioner's entitlement to a bond hearing, making the grant of the petition appropriate. |
Order directing individualized bond hearing within seven days“Respondents 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 The order to provide a bond hearing is a standard remedy in § 2241 cases where the court finds the petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) and entitled to a bond hearing. The seven-day timeframe is a reasonable administrative directive. |
Prohibition on denying bond based on § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention“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 Since the court determined the petitioner is subject to § 1226(a) and not § 1225(b), the immigration judge cannot rely on the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b)(2). This instruction is legally consistent with the court's statutory interpretation. |
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 requirement aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent (Hernandez v. Sessions) that bond determinations under § 1226(a) must consider the individual's circumstances, including ability to pay and alternative conditions. |
Requirement to make complete record of bond hearing available“Respondents 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 facilitate potential appellate review, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (Martinez v. Clark). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory distinction between 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and § 1226(a) as established in Jennings v. Rodriguez. It relies on a recent district court case (Beltran v. Noem) for the specific application to a noncitizen present for over twenty years, which is a reasonable approach given the lack of a directly on-point Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent cited in the order for this specific factual scenario. The order also correctly cites Ninth Circuit precedent for the procedural requirements of the bond hearing. The reasoning is sound and the result follows from the law and the record recited.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LUIS SIERRA HERNANDEZ Case No.: 26cv1218-LL-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; et al., 15 [ECF No. 1] Respondents. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Luis Sierra Hernandez’s Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”)], alleging that he is a 20 member of the Bond Eligible Class of Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, 21 No. 25cv1873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal.), who is deemed to be detained under 22 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and eligible for a bond hearing. Pet. ¶¶ 29–33. He seeks a writ of habeas 23 corpus directing Respondents to release him or, alternatively, to provide him with a bond 24 hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 8–9. 25 Respondents filed a Response in which they acknowledge that Petitioner is detained 26 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond hearing 27 be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 4. 28 / / / 1 The Court finds Petitioner is wrongfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). As a 2 noncitizen who, at the time of his detention, had been present in the United States for more 3 than twenty years, Petitioner was and is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which states that a 4 noncitizen “may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the [noncitizen] 5 is to be removed from the United States.” Pet. ¶¶ 6, 21; 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). By contrast, 6 8 U.S.C § 1225(b) applies to noncitizens arriving at the border or who very recently entered 7 the United States. See Beltran v. Noem, No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at 8 *4–7 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). As the Supreme Court explained, the government may 9 “detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2),” 10 while § 1226(a) allows the government to “detain certain aliens already in the county 11 pending the outcome of removal proceedings.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 12 (2018) (emphasis added). The Court adopts its reasoning stated in Beltran v. Noem on this 13 issue. Id. at *4–7. 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 15 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.1 16 2. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 17 before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the 18 date of this order. 19 a. At any such hearing, the immigration judge SHALL NOT deny 20 Petitioner bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires 21 mandatory detention. 22 b. The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of 23 release and Petitioner’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines bond 24 is appropriate. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990–91 (9th 25 Cir. 2017). 26 27 1 Iin the Petition’s prayer for relief [Pet. at 9], Petitioner requests attorney’s fees under the 28 l C. Respondents SHALL make a complete record of the bond hearing 2 available to Petitioner and his counsel. See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 3 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Singh, 638 F.3d at 1200). 4 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this 5 || case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: April 22, 2026 NO 9 Honorable Linda Lopez 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28