Juan Manuel Villanueva Gonzalez v. Christopher Larose, Sr. Warden, OMDC, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 24 25 26 27
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), who argued that his warrantless arrest rendered his detention unauthorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court denied the request for immediate release but ordered the government to provide an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for immediate release denied“The Court finds immediate release is not warranted because 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) authorizes warrantless arrests and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) provides the government forty-eight hours to issue a warrant if it determines that the noncitizen will remain in custody.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory framework. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) explicitly authorizes warrantless arrests for noncitizens, and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) provides a 48-hour window for issuing a warrant. The petitioner's argument that the lack of a prior warrant rendered the detention unauthorized under § 1226(a) is legally incorrect because § 1225(b)(2) governs the detention of arriving aliens and does not require a judicial warrant for the initial arrest if the arrest itself was authorized under § 1357(a)(2). |
Petition for bond hearing granted“The government shall provide Mr. Villanueva Gonzalez with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen days of the date of this order” | agree with court The court ordered a bond hearing under § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2). While the petitioner is detained under § 1225(b)(2), the government did not oppose a § 1226(a) bond hearing. The court's order explicitly prohibits the immigration judge from denying bond based on the mandatory detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2), effectively treating the detention as subject to the individualized review required by § 1226(a). This aligns with the government's return and the cited precedent (Beltran v. Noem). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct statutory authorities. It correctly identifies that warrantless arrests are authorized under § 1357(a)(2) and that the 48-hour rule in 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) applies. The remedy of a bond hearing is consistent with the government's position and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the rights of detained noncitizens to individualized review. The order clearly defines the scope of the bond hearing and the burden of proof.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN MANUEL VILLANUEVA Case No.: 26cv3180-LL-VET GONZALEZ, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Petitioner, 13 DENYING IN PART MENDED v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Sr. Warden, 15 2241 OMDC, et al., 16 Respondent. [ECF No. 9] 17 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Juan Manuel Villanueva Gonzalez’s Amended Petition 20 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that he is wrongfully detained 21 under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 9 (“Pet.”). Mr. Villanueva Gonzalez alleges that his 22 arrest without a warrant issued prior to his arrest render his arrest and detention 23 unauthorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that he should be immediately released. 24 Id. at 8–10; ECF No. 12. 25 The government filed a Return stating that it does not oppose an order from this 26 Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 11. 27 However, the government opposes the request for immediate release and attached a copy 28 1 of an administrative warrant issued on the day of Mr. Villanueva Gonzalez’s arrest. 2 ECF No. 11-1; ECF No. 12 at 3. 3 The Court finds immediate release is not warranted because 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) 4 authorizes warrantless arrests and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d) provides the government forty-eight 5 hours to issue a warrant if it determines that the noncitizen will remain in custody. 6 Therefore, the Court finds a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. See Beltran v. Noem, 7 No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). 8 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 9 1. Mr. Villanueva Gonzalez’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 10 GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 11 2. The government shall provide Mr. Villanueva Gonzalez with an 12 individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 13 within fourteen days of the date of this order, unless Mr. Villaneuva Gonzalez requests a 14 continuance.1 15 a. At any such hearing, the immigration judge SHALL NOT deny 16 Petitioner bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires 17 mandatory detention. 18 b. The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of 19 release and Mr. Villanueva Gonzalez’s ability to pay bond if he or she 20 determines bond is appropriate. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 21 976, 990–91 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 c. If requested by Mr. Villanueva Gonzalez, the government SHALL 23 assist him in obtaining the audio recording of the bond hearing. 24 25 26 27 1 In a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the burden is on the detainee to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a flight risk or danger to the community. 28 1 Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Singh v. 2 Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011)). 3 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Mr. Villanueva Gonzalez’s favor 4 || and close this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 ||Dated: July 17, 2026 NO 7 Jc J g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28