Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO ZAFRA SALINAS, Case No.: 26-CV-03770 JAO (JLB)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 PATRICK DIVVER, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal 15 (ECF No. 1) Operations, San Diego Field Office, 16 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 Before the Court is Francisco Zafra Salinas’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). Also before the Court is Respondents Patrick 21 Divver’s (Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Diego Field Office, 22 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)), Todd M. Lyon’s (Acting Director, 23 ICE), Markwayne Mullin’s (Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 24 (“DHS”)), DHS’s, Todd Blanche’s (Acting United States Attorney General), Executive 25 Office for Immigration Review’s, and Christopher J. LaRose’s (Warden of Otay Mesa 26 Detention Facility) (collectively, “Respondents” or the “Government”) Return to the 27 Petition (ECF No. 4). 28 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who is in removal proceedings and was arrested 3 by ICE on June 25, 2026. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 20. He has not received a bond hearing 4 because Immigration Courts have taken the position that they lack jurisdiction to order 5 release of people held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See id. 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 8 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district 9 of his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole 10 judicial body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or 11 removal is the court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas 12 v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109- 13 13, 119 Stat. 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral 14 issues arising independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of 15 indefinite detention—federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. 16 Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other 17 grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. 18 Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (citations omitted). 19 DISCUSSION 20 Petitioner argues that he is entitled to a bond hearing as a member of the Bond 21 Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 22 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025) (“Bautista”). See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 25–30. 23 Respondents concede that Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bautista class. See 24 ECF No. 4 at 2. And while the Ninth Circuit stayed the application of Bautista beyond 25 the Central District of California, Respondents recognize that courts in this district have 26 ordered bond hearings in similar cases. See id. “Respondents therefore do not oppose an 27 order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” 28 Id. 1 The Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 2 || 1226(a). See, e.g., Esquival-Ipina v. LaRose, 812 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1080-81 (S.D. Cal. 3 2025); Garcia Garcia v. Mullin, 2026 WL 1303159, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2026) 4 (acknowledging Bautista and ordering bond hearing). 5 CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 7 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to 8 || provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within fourteen (14) days before a 9 || neutral immigration judge in which the Government bears the burden of establishing by 10 and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk 11 released.' If no hearing occurs within fourteen days of this Order, Petitioner shall be 12 released from Respondents’ custody. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for release 13 || from detention without prejudice but notes that if Respondents do not give Petitioner an 14 || adequate bond hearing, the Court may order release in the future. See, e.g., Singh v. 15 || LaRose, 2026 WL 1387428, at *S—6 (May 18, 2026); Perez Velasquez v. Bondi, 2026 16 || WL 1042479, at *6—7 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2026). The Parties SHALL file a Joint Status 17 || Report by July 31, 2026, informing the Court of the outcome of the hearing.” 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: July 14, 2026 20 SSI, ‘ 22 dot Jill A. Otake 74 an ait IG? United States District Judge |p 25 ||! See, e.g., Barrera v. LaRose, 2026 WL 1303159, at *1 n.3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2026) (concluding that 26 the Government bears the burden on a bond hearing of a Bautista class member). 17 Petitioner requested attorney’s fees, related expenses, and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See ECF No. 1 at 9. Petitioner’s counsel may submit an appropriate 9g ||EAJA fee application within 30 days of the issuance of this Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).