Melissa J. Espinoza Ibarra v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- writ granted — the Petition is GRANTED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen detained by ICE who argued she was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The court granted the petition, ordering the government to provide an individualized bond hearing within 14 days or release the petitioner.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 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 the petitioner's status as a member of the Bond Eligible Class in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. The court found that because the petitioner was not apprehended upon arrival, she was subject to § 1226(a) discretionary detention procedures rather than § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention. This aligns with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, which holds that noncitizens not apprehended at the border are entitled to bond hearings under § 1226(a). |
Order directing individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 14 days“The Government is ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance.” | agree with court This remedy is consistent with the legal standard established in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland and the court's prior orders in similar cases (e.g., N.A. v. LaRose). The 14-day timeframe is a reasonable judicial directive to ensure prompt resolution of the detention status. |
Order prohibiting denial of bond based on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) mandatory detention“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 correctly applies the holding in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, which clarifies that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to noncitizens who were not apprehended at the border or port of entry. Since the petitioner entered without inspection and was not apprehended upon arrival, § 1226(a) governs her detention. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and legally consistent with binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland). The court correctly identified the applicable statutory provision (§ 1226(a) vs. § 1225(b)(2)) based on the petitioner's entry history (not apprehended upon arrival). The reliance on the government's non-opposition and the certified class action (Maldonado Bautista) provides a solid factual and legal basis for the ruling. The specific directives (14-day hearing, burden of proof, release if no hearing) are standard and appropriate remedies in this context.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MELISSA J. ESPINOZA IBARRA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03923-RBM-DEB 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 11 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 12 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL [Doc. 1] DETENTION FACILITY, 13 Respondent. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Melissa J. Espinoza Ibarra’s (“Petitioner”) 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 18 For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States on or around February 21, 21 2026, without inspection and was not apprehended upon arrival. (Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 1-2 at 22 1.) Petitioner was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in June 2026 23 and has remained detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. (Doc. 1 at 4.) On 24 June 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued Petitioner a Notice to 25 Appear charging her under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 26 as a noncitizen present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) 27 as an immigrant not in possession of a valid entry document. (See Doc. 1-2 at 1–4.) 28 On July 8, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition alleging that she “is being treated 1 categorically ineligible” for a bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to Matter 2 of Yahure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. BIA 216 (BIA 2025). (Doc. 1 at 3.) Petitioner claims 3 she is entitled to a bond hearing or, in the alternative, release. (Id. at 4.) Pursuant to this 4 Court’s Order (see Doc. 3), Respondents filed a Response to the Petition on July 17, 2026. 5 (Doc. 4.) Petitioner has not filed an optional reply brief as of the date of this Order. 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 she is a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado 18 Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025), and is “unlawfully detained 19 under the wrong statutory authority and unlawfully denied” a bond hearing (Doc. 1 at 4.) 20 Respondents assert that Petitioner “appears to be a member of the Bond Eligible Class in 21 Maldonado Bautista” and “do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing 22 be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (Doc. 4 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 Petitioner with an individualized 5 bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of 6 this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance. 7 2. At the bond hearing, the non-citizen bears the burden of demonstrating, by a 8 preponderance of the evidence, that they are not a danger to the community or a 9 flight risk. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 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 noncitizen does not request a continuance, and no hearing occurs within 13 fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, the noncitizen shall be released from 14 Respondents’ custody. 15 5. The Government SHALL FILE a status report on or before August 18, 2026 16 indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing and the results 17 of such hearing. 18 6. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATE: July 29, 2026 9 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28