Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNESTO DOMINGO-MEJIA, Case No.: 26-CV-03892 JAO (GC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 PATRICK DIVVER, et al., 15 Respondents. (ECF No. 1) 16 17 18 Before the Court is Ernesto Domingo-Mejia’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). Also before the Court is Respondents Patrick 20 Divver’s (Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Diego Field Office, 21 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)), Christopher J. LaRose’s (Warden of 22 Otay Mesa Detention Facility), and Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) 23 (collectively, “Respondents” or the “Government”) Return to the Petition (ECF No. 4). 24 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition. 25 BACKGROUND 26 Petitioner is a Guatemalan national who last entered the United States without 27 inspection in approximately 2015 at or near Altar, Arizona. See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 14. He 28 was detained by Respondents on March 11, 2026 but has not received a bond hearing; 1 instead, Respondents have taken the position that Petitioner’s detention is mandatory 2 under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). See ECF No. 4 at 1–2. 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 5 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district 6 of his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole 7 judicial body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or 8 removal is the court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas 9 v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109- 10 13, 119 Stat. 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral 11 issues arising independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of 12 indefinite detention—federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. 13 Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other 14 grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. 15 Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (citations omitted). 16 DISCUSSION 17 Petitioner argues that he is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather 18 than mandatory detention under § 1225(b). See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 19–24. Respondents 19 concede that Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in 20 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21 25, 2025) (“Bautista”). See ECF No. 4 at 1–2. And while the Ninth Circuit stayed the 22 application of Bautista beyond the Central District of California, Respondents recognize 23 that courts in this district have ordered bond hearings in similar cases. See id. at 2. 24 “Respondents therefore do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing 25 be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Id. 26 The Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 27 1226(a). See, e.g., Esquival-Ipina v. LaRose, 812 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1080–81 (S.D. Cal. 28 1 2025); Garcia Garcia v. Mullin, 2026 WL 1303159, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2026) 2 || (acknowledging Bautista and ordering bond hearing). 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 5 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to 6 || provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within fourteen (14) days before a 7 ||neutral immigration judge in which the Government bears the burden of establishing by 8 ||clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk 9 |/ifreleased.! If no hearing occurs within fourteen days of this Order, Petitioner shall be 10 |/released from Respondents’ custody. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s request for release 11 || from detention without prejudice but notes that if Respondents do not give Petitioner an 12 adequate bond hearing, the Court may order release in the future. See, e.g., Singh v. 13 || LaRose, 2026 WL 1387428, at *5—6 (May 18, 2026); Perez Velasquez v. Bondi, 2026 14 || WL 1042479, at *6—7 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2026). The Parties SHALL file a Joint Status 15 Report by August 11, 2026, informing the Court of the outcome of the hearing.” 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: July 22, 2026 20 wy) 21 ie 9 cn’ □□□ A. Otake > □□ @ — United States District Judge 3 ree 00 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). 7 * 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 10. Petitioner’s counsel may submit an appropriate 2g || EAJA fee application within 30 days of the issuance of this Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).