Maria Iveth Gurrola Recendiz v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- writ granted — the Petition is GRANTED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Mexican national detained by ICE in California, where the government did not oppose the request for a bond hearing. The court granted the petition, ordering the government to provide an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days or release the petitioner.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted“For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court relied on the government's non-opposition and a prior district court order (N.A. v. LaRose) to determine that the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to a bond hearing. While the reliance on a single unpublished district court order and the government's concession is procedurally efficient, it skips the independent statutory analysis of whether the petitioner falls under § 1225(b)(2) (mandatory detention for arriving aliens) versus § 1226(a) (discretionary detention). However, given the facts recited (resided in US for 18 years, not apprehended upon arrival), the classification under § 1226(a) is legally sound under existing circuit precedent (e.g., Jennings v. Rodriguez, 582 U.S. 297 (2018), which distinguishes between the two statutes based on the nature of the detention). The court's conclusion that detention without a bond hearing violates due process is consistent with the statutory framework for § 1226(a) detainees. |
Order to provide individualized bond hearing within 10 days“The Government is ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance.” | agree with court This is a standard remedial order following a finding of unlawful detention or lack of due process in immigration detention cases. The 10-day timeframe is a common judicial directive to ensure prompt compliance. |
Burden of proof set on Government“At the bond hearing, the Government shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the noncitizen poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” | agree with court The court correctly applies the burden of proof standard for § 1226(a) bond hearings. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a danger to the community or a flight risk. This is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011)). |
Prohibition on denying bond based on § 1225(b)(2)“The Government SHALL NOT deny the noncitizen’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention.” | agree with court This order clarifies the statutory basis for detention. Since the court found the petitioner is subject to § 1226(a) (discretionary detention) and not § 1225(b)(2) (mandatory detention for arriving aliens), the government cannot rely on the mandatory detention provision to deny bond. This is a logical consequence of the court's classification of the detention. |
Order to release if bond hearing not held within 10 days“If the bond hearing is not conducted within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order, the Government shall release the noncitizen from custody until it is determined that his detention is warranted under § 1226(a).” | agree with court This is a standard enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with the court's order. It places the burden on the government to act promptly or face release. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is sound in its result but relies heavily on a single unpublished district court order (N.A. v. LaRose) and the government's non-opposition. It does not explicitly cite binding Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent (such as Jennings v. Rodriguez or Diouf v. Napolitano) to support the statutory interpretation of § 1226(a) vs. § 1225(b)(2) or the burden of proof standard. However, the legal conclusions are consistent with established law, and the government's concession simplifies the analysis. The order is procedurally correct and legally defensible.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA IVETH GURROLA RECENDIZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03187-RBM-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, [Doc. 1] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et 15 al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Maria Iveth Gurrola Recendiz’s (“Petitioner”) 20 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 21 For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner, a national of Mexico, has resided in the United States for over 18 years. 24 (See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1, 18.) On April 2, 2026, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 25 (“ICE”) “targeted Petitioner near her permanent interior residence in Escondido, 26 California, and took her into administrative custody following a law enforcement 27 stop . . . .” (Id. ¶ 8.) That same day, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) 28 issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) which commenced her removal proceedings. 1 (Id. ¶ 9; see Doc. 1-2, Ex. E at 21–24.) 2 On May 21, 2026, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for a custody 3 redetermination based on a lack of jurisdiction under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N 4 Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1, 10–11; see Doc. 1-2, Ex. F at 26.) Petitioner filed the 5 instant Petition shortly thereafter. (See id.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 8 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 9 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 10 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 11 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 12 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 13 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 14 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 15 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Petitioner claims her immigration detention a violates the Immigration and 18 Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 13–25.) 19 Respondents “do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held 20 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (Doc. 4 at 1.) 21 In light of Respondents’ non-opposition, and the Court’s previous orders concerning 22 similarly situated petitioners, the Court finds that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1226(a) and her “arrest and detention without a meaningful bond hearing [therefore 24 violated] the Due Process Clause.” See N.A. v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-03028-RBM-DEB, 25 2025 WL 3512412, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025) (finding a petitioner who was not 26 apprehended upon arrival and resided in the United States for 17 years was subject to 27 § 1226’s discretionary detention procedures and entitled to a bond hearing). 28 l IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly, 3 Court further ORDERS as follows: 4 1. The Government is ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized 5 bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the entry of this 6 Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance. 7 2. At the bond hearing, the Government shall bear the burden of establishing, by 8 clear and convincing evidence, that the noncitizen poses a danger to the 9 community or a risk of flight. 10 3. The Government SHALL NOT deny the noncitizen’s bond on the basis that 8 11 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. 12 4. If the bond hearing is not conducted within ten (10) days of the entry of this 13 Order, the Government shall release the noncitizen from custody until it is 14 determined that his detention is warranted under § 1226(a). 15 5. The Government SHALL FILE a status report on or before July 10, 2026 16 indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing and the results 17 of such hearing. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || DATE: June 29, 2026 Fath Bearadls Merge D> HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28