Jaidivert Hurtado-Anchico v. Warden; et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Respondents further state that in light of the Court’s prior decisions on
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition challenging the petitioner's immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the Fifth Amendment. The court granted the petition in part by ordering an individualized bond hearing within 14 days and denied the request for immediate release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted in part and denied in part“Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth below.” | agree with court The court correctly identified the applicable statute as 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) based on the petitioner's arrest in the interior of the United States, distinguishing it from the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b)(2). The decision to grant a bond hearing rather than immediate release is consistent with the lack of controlling authority for immediate release in the specific factual context provided. |
Request for immediate release denied without prejudice“Petitioner’s request for immediate release is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court found that the petitioner did not present controlling authority supporting immediate release over a bond hearing given the specific facts (interior arrest, marriage to citizen). Denying without prejudice allows the petitioner to seek release if circumstances change or if the bond hearing results in denial. |
Order for individualized bond hearing within 14 days“Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.” | agree with court Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), non-citizens are entitled to a bond hearing. The court's order ensures this right is exercised promptly and prohibits the immigration judge from relying on the inapplicable mandatory detention statute § 1225(b)(2). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the distinction between § 1225(b)(2) and § 1226(a) based on the location of arrest. It relies on recent district court precedent (Beltran) and binding Ninth Circuit authority (Hernandez, Martinez) to structure the relief. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture, especially given the government's non-opposition and deference to the court's prior decisions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIDIVERT HURTADO-ANCHICO, Case No.: 26cv2502-LL-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN; et al., PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 15 Respondents. § 2241 16 [ECF No. 1] 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Jaidivert Hurtado-Anchico’s Petition for a Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”)], which claims his detention 20 violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the Due Process 21 Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 36-56. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus 22 directing Respondents to release him or, alternatively, to provide him with a bond hearing 23 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 17. 24 Respondents filed a Return in which they state that “it is the government’s position 25 that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2),” but “the government 26 acknowledges that this Court, and Courts in this District, have repeatedly reached the 27 opposite conclusion under the same and/or similar facts.” ECF No. 4 at 2 (internal citations 28 omitted). Respondents further state that in light of the Court’s prior decisions on cases with 1 similar facts, “the government does not oppose the petition and defers to the court on the 2 appropriate relief.” Id. at 3. 3 Petitioner did not file a traverse, but did file a Status Report on May 20, 2026. ECF 4 No. 5. In the Status Report, Petitioner reiterates his request for “immediate release of the 5 Petitioner from his prolonged detention at the Otay Mesa Correctional Facility.” Id. at 2. 6 Petitioner alternatively requests a bond hearing within fourteen (14) days. Id. Upon the 7 Court’s review of the Petition and the Status Report, Petitioner has not presented the Court 8 with any controlling authority that supports Petitioner’s request for immediate release 9 (instead of a bond hearing) given the facts of Petitioner’s case. 10 Here, Petitioner states that he got married to a United States citizen in October 2025 11 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Pet. ¶ 22. Subsequently, Petitioner was arrested on February 19, 12 2026, in the interior of the United States near a casino in Chula Vista/El Cajon. Id. ¶ 24. 13 The Court finds that Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See, e.g., 14 Beltran v. Noem, No. 25cv2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at *4–7 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 15 2025). The Court adopts its reasoning stated in Beltran v. Noem on this issue. Id. 16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 17 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART 18 AND DENIED IN PART as set forth below. 19 2. Petitioner’s request for immediate release is DENIED WITHOUT 20 PREJUDICE. 21 2. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 22 before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of 23 the date of this order. 24 a. At any such hearing, the immigration judge SHALL NOT deny 25 Petitioner bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires 26 mandatory detention. 27 b. The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of 28 release and Petitioner’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines bond I is appropriate. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 (9th 2 Cir. 2017). 3 C. Respondents SHALL make a complete record of the bond hearing 4 available to Petitioner and his counsel. See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 5 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024). 6 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this 7 || case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 20, 2026 NO 10 Je ft 11 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28