Amer Antonio Rivas Diaz v. Patrick Divver, Director of the San Diego Field Office of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations; Christopher J. LaRose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee seeking release from custody. The court granted the petition in part, ordering the government to provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days and prohibiting the government from denying bond based on mandatory detention provisions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted in part“Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS in part the petition for writ of habeas corpus and VACATES the hearing set on May 8, 2026.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner was subject to mandatory detention without an individualized bond hearing, which violates due process principles established in Jennings v. Rodriguez and subsequent Ninth Circuit precedent. By ordering a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than immediate release, the court applied the appropriate remedy consistent with recent district court decisions in the circuit. |
Order directing bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days“Respondents PROVIDE Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of this Order” | agree with court The order to provide a bond hearing is a standard remedy for detainees who have been held without an individualized custody determination. The ten-day timeframe is reasonable and consistent with similar orders in the district. |
Prohibition on denying bond based on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention“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 prohibition is appropriate because the court found that the petitioner was not subject to a final order of removal and that respondents had not identified a valid basis for mandatory detention under the INA. The court correctly prevented the government from using the mandatory detention provision to circumvent the bond hearing requirement. |
Prohibition on transferring petitioner from the district pending bond hearing“Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner from this district pending his bond hearing” | agree with court This restriction ensures that the petitioner can actually access the bond hearing ordered by the court. It is a standard protective measure in habeas corpus proceedings to prevent the government from evading the court's order through transfer. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal framework. It correctly identifies the petitioner's status, the lack of a final order of removal, and the absence of a valid basis for mandatory detention. The court appropriately relies on recent district court precedent within the circuit to determine that a bond hearing is the proper remedy rather than immediate release. The order includes specific, enforceable directives with clear timeframes and protective measures to ensure compliance. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture of the case.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
possible biasOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Amer Antonio Rivas Diaz, Case No.: 26cv2655-GPC(GC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 Patrick Divver, Director of the San Diego Field Office of ICE’s Enforcement and 15 Removal Operations; Christopher J. 16 LaRose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, 17 Respondents. 18 19 On April 27, 2026, Amer Antonio Rivas Diaz (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ 20 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking to be released from his unlawful 21 detention at the Otay Mesa Detention Facility. (Dkt. No. 1, Pet.) Respondents filed a 22 response on April 30, 2025. (Dkt. No. 4.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court 23 GRANTS in part the petition for writ of habeas corpus and VACATES the hearing set on 24 May 8, 2026. 25 Discussion 26 Petitioner, a 44-year-old native and citizen of Honduras, last entered the United 27 States on January 11, 2010 near Tijuana/Tecate, California without inspection and 28 1 remained in the United States since that time. (Dkt. No. 1, Pet. ¶¶ 14, 17.) Petitioner 2 received a Notice to Appear dated August 27, 2014 alleging he is not a citizen or national 3 of the United States, that he is a native and citizen of Honduras, that he entered the United 4 States around January 17, 2017 and that he was not admitted or paroled after inspection by 5 an immigration officer. (Id. ¶18.) He married Laly Lopez-Rivas in September 2014 in El 6 Cajon, California and has a twenty-year old United States citizen son who lives in San 7 Diego, California. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 20.) He has strong family ties through his spouse’ four 8 United States citizen children all of whom are adults and reside in San Diego. (Id. ¶ 21.) 9 He has a DUI-related incident from August 27, 2014 where he was placed on probation 10 and completed all terms. (Id. ¶ 22.) 11 Around March 25, 2026, Petitioner was driving his recreational vehicle on his way 12 to work with his aunt when an unidentified person yelled at him not to move and stated 13 ICE was coming for him but did not identify himself as an ICE officer. (Id. ¶ 24.) He 14 continued on his way as he was headed to work and the officers detained him while he was 15 taking an exit from the freeway. (Id. ¶ 25.) Petitioner has been detained and remains in 16 immigration custody. (Id. ¶ 27.) Petitioner is not subject to a final order of removal and 17 Respondents have not identified any valid basis for mandatory detention under the 18 Immigration and Nationality Act. (Id. ¶ 28.) He has never received an individualized 19 custody determination or bond hearing before a neutral adjudicator. (Id. ¶ 29.) Petitioner 20 alleges violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and violations of procedural due 21 process under the Fifth Amendment and seeks to be released immediately. 22 In response to the order to show cause, Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner 23 appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. 24 Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. 25 Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), amended and superseded by reconsideration by –F. Supp. 3d--, 2025 26 WL 3713987 (Dec. 18, 2025) which the Ninth Circuit later stayed its application beyond 27 the Central District of California. (Dkt. No. 4.) Nonetheless, Respondents acknowledge 28 this District has been directing bond hearings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in similar 1 ||cases. As such, Respondents do not oppose an order directing a bond hearing be held under 2 ||8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). To the extent Petitioner requests immediate release, such a request is 3 ||premature. Section 1226 requires only consideration of release on bond, and a bond 4 hearing is therefore sufficient to correct Respondents’ ongoing violation of the INA as to 5 || Petitioner. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Garcia v. Noem, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1078 (S.D. Cal. 6 2025) (finding a bond hearing, rather than release, to be the appropriate remedy where 7 || Petitioner was wrongfully subjected to mandatory detention without a hearing under 8 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) rather than provided a bond hearing under § 1226(a)); Esquivel-Ipina 9 || v. LaRose, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2998361, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025) (same). 10 || Therefore, the Court GRANTS in part the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, 11 || IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 12 e Respondents PROVIDE Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 13 1226(a) within ten (10) days of this Order; 14 e Respondents must FILE a Notice of Compliance within seven (7) days of the 15 hearing confirming that Petitioner was provided with a bond hearing and 16 stating whether Petitioner was released on bond; 17 e Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention; 19 e Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner from this district pending his 20 bond hearing; 21 e The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner's favor and close this 22 case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2) Dated: May 1, 2026 2 sale Od 26 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 27 United States District Judge 28