Norbeli Rubiral de Gonzalez-Morales v. Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “availa
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Guatemalan citizen detained in immigration custody, 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 seven days or release the petitioner.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.“Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court relied on the government's non-opposition and its own prior orders in similar cases to determine that the petitioner was subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Given the government's concession that the petitioner belongs to a class entitled to bond hearings and the citation to a recent district court decision (N.A. v. LaRose) applying similar facts, the decision follows from the record and the law as applied by the court. |
Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT.“The Motion for OSC (Doc. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court Because the underlying petition for habeas corpus was granted, the motion for an order to show cause became unnecessary. Denying a motion as moot when the primary relief has been granted is procedurally correct. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the government's concession and consistent district court precedent. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it does not explicitly analyze the statutory text of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) versus § 1226(a) to explain why the petitioner falls into the latter category, relying instead on the government's non-opposition and a single analogous case. While defensible given the concession, a more robust legal analysis of the statutory distinction would strengthen the opinion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 NORBELI RUBIRAL DE GONZALEZ- Case No.: 3:26-cv-03475-RBM-AHG MORALES, 10 ORDER GRANTING VERIFIED Petitioner, 11 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS 12 WARDEN, IMPERIAL REGIONAL 13 [Doc. 1] DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 Pending before the Court are Petitioner Norbeli Rubiral de Gonzalez-Morales’s 18 (“Petitioner”) Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 19 (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) and Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause (“Motion for 20 OSC”) (Doc. 5). For the reasons set forth below, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED and 21 the Motion for OSC (Doc. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, “entered the United States without inspection and 24 was not apprehended at the border or during the inspection process.” (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 4, 23.) 25 Petitioner was later “arrested by immigration authorities inside the United States and 26 subsequently placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.” (Id. ¶ 23.) 27 “Petitioner is currently detained in the physical custody of Respondents at the Imperial 28 Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, California.” (Id. ¶ 1.) 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 4 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 5 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 6 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 7 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 8 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 9 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 10 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 Petitioner claims he is unlawful detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), instead of 8 13 U.S.C. § 1226(a), without a bond hearing in violation of the Immigration and Nationality 14 Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 20–32.) Petitioner 15 seeks his “release unless Respondents provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 16 within seven days.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Respondents maintain their “position that Petitioner is 17 subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)” but “acknowledge[ ] that Petitioner 18 appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. 19 Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025).” (Doc. 8 at 1–2.) Respondents further 20 “acknowledge the prior orders from this District directing bond hearings pursuant to 8 21 U.S.C. § 1226(a) in similar cases [and] therefore do not oppose an order from this Court 22 directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (Id. at 2.) 23 In light of Respondents’ non-opposition, and the Court’s previous orders concerning 24 similarly situated petitioners, the Court finds that Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) 25 and is entitled to a bond hearing. See N.A. v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-03028-RBM-DEB, 26 2025 WL 3512412, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025) (finding a petitioner who was not 27 apprehended upon arrival and resided in the United States for 17 years was subject to 28 § 1226’s discretionary detention procedures and entitled to a bond hearing). 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 the noncitizen with an individualized 5 bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the entry of this 6 Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance. 7 2. At the bond hearing, the noncitizen shall bear the burden of establishing, by a 8 preponderance of the evidence, that he is not a danger to the community or a risk 9 of flight.! If the noncitizen does not request a continuance, and no hearing occurs 10 within seven (7) days of entry of this Order, the noncitizen shall be released from 11 Respondents’ custody. 12 3. The Government SHALL NOT deny the noncitizen’s bond on the basis that 8 13 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. 14 4. The Government SHALL FILE a status report on or before August 11, 2026 15 indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing and the results 16 of that bond hearing. 17 5. The Motion for OSC (Doc. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT. 18 IT ISSO ORDERED. 19 ||} DATE: July 21, 2026 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' See Morales Juarez v. Mullin, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03910-RBM-BJW, 2026 WL 2076159, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 17, 2026).