Jader Jesus Diaz Aguirre v. Warden, et. al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 6 Petitioner contends his detent
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) who argued that his detention without a bond hearing violated the APA and the Fifth Amendment. The court granted the petition, ordering the government to hold a bond hearing by June 2, 2026, and enjoining the transfer of the petitioner prior to that hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordering a bond hearing“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondents shall hold a bond hearing no later than June 2, 2026, and cannot deny bond at the hearing based on § 1225.” | agree with court The court's decision is supported by the Respondents' explicit concession that the facts are distinguishable from mandatory detention cases and their statement that they do not oppose the petition. The court correctly identifies that the government's reliance on § 1225(b)(2) is contradicted by its own acknowledgment of contrary district court precedent. While the order is brief, the result follows logically from the parties' positions and the cited statutory authority for habeas relief. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the correct statutory and case law authorities to establish jurisdiction and the availability of habeas relief. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' decision because it does not explicitly analyze the specific legal merits of the APA or Due Process claims, nor does it cite the specific Ninth Circuit or District of California precedent (such as *Rodriguez v. Robbins* or *Diaz v. INS*) that the Respondents acknowledged as controlling. The court relies heavily on the government's concession rather than an independent legal analysis of why § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to this specific factual scenario (release on supervision/EAD vs. conditional parole).
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 JADER JESUS DIAZ AGUIRRE, Case No.: 26-cv-2282-BJC-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. 14 WARDEN, et. al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Jader Jesus Diaz Aguirre is a citizen of Columbia who entered the United 18 States on September 21, 2023. ECF No. 4 at 16. Petitioner applied for asylum, was 19 released on supervision, and received an employment authorization document (“EAD”), 20 which allowed him to work legally in the United States. Id. at 2. On January 19, 2026, 21 Petitioner was detained during a scheduled ICE check-in, and he remains detained at the 22 Imperial Detention Center. Id. 23 On April 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On April 27, 2026, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition 25 seeking his immediate release or a bond hearing. ECF No. 4. On May 5, 2026, 26 Respondents filed a return. ECF No. 6. 27 Courts may grant habeas corpus relief to those “in custody in violation of the 28 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241; see also Hamdi v. 1 || Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 2644, 159 L. Ed. 2d 578 (2004) (“[T]he writ 2 || of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States.”). 3 ||Courts are authorized to grant writs pursuant to § 2241 to noncitizens in custody in 4 || violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Magana-Pizano v. 5 ||ZN.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999). 6 Petitioner contends his detention without a bond hearing violates the Administrative 7 || Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. ECF No. 8 ||4 at 17-18. Respondents do not address Petitioner’s arguments. Instead, Respondents state 9 Petitioner was previously released on conditional parole, therefore, he 1s subject to 10 || mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 6 at 2. However, Respondents 11 ||‘‘acknowledge[] that this Court, and Courts in this District, have repeatedly reached the 12 || opposite conclusion under the same and/or similar facts” and that the facts of this case “are 13 materially distinguishable.” Jd. Therefore, Respondents do “not oppose the petition.” 14 || 7d. at 3. 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 16 || Respondents shall hold a bond hearing no later than June 2, 2026, and cannot deny bond 17 ||at the hearing based on § 1225. Respondents are enjoined from transferring Petitioner 18 || before a bond hearing takes place. 19 The Clerk of Court shall close this matter. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: May 21, 2026 23 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28