Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUANA INESTROZA MADRID, Case No. 26-cv-04054-BAS-JAC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 18 19 Petitioner Juana Inestroza Madrid filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting immediate release or, in the alternative, a bond 21 hearing. (ECF No. 1.) The Government responded to the Petition, acknowledging that, 22 pursuant to Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2025), 23 Respondents “do not oppose” a bond hearing. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner filed a Traverse 24 arguing that a bond hearing before the Immigration Court is inappropriate because the 25 Immigration Court cannot provide the constitutionally meaningful hearing the Fifth 26 Amendment requires and that, at any bond hearing, the Government should have the burden 27 to show by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the 28 community. (ECF No. 5.) 1 For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it 2 requests a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge but DENIES the Petition to the extent 3 it requests the bond hearing be held by this Court or that the burden be shifted to the 4 Government to show by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner should remain in 5 custody. 6 I. 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). “The traditional function of the writ 9 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 10 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 11 custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The writ is 12 available to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 13 678, 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody, and since she is seeking release from 14 custody, she has standing to pursue this Petition. 15 II. ANALYSIS 16 Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras, entered the United States fourteen years ago 17 without inspection. (Pet. ¶¶ 5, 25, ECF No. 1.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement 18 (“ICE”) arrested her on March 23, 2026, in the interior of the United States. (Id. ¶ 3.) Since 19 her arrest, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has refused to grant her request 20 for a bond hearing, presumably relying on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 21 (BIA 2025). (Id.) 22 The Ninth Circuit recently put to rest the issue of whether Yajure Hurtado remains 23 good law in the Ninth Circuit. Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). It 24 does not. Vazquez, slip op. at 10 (“[W]e conclude that aliens present without admission 25 who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime 26 of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).”). The Government does not oppose the request for a bond 27 hearing. (ECF No. 4.) 28 I The question remains, however, whether the Immigration Court should be 2 || disqualified from holding this bond hearing and whether the burden should be shifted at 3 hearing—requiring the Government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that 4 || Petitioner would pose a danger to the community or a flight risk if released. (ECF No. 5.) 5 || The evidence that the Immigration Court is so biased that it is no longer an independent 6 || entity is insufficient to support disqualification of the entire bench. In addition, the recent 7 || Ninth Circuit case of Vazquez v. Bostock affirms that “‘a § 1226(a) detainee will be released 8 bond if he demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that he is not a flight risk or a 9 danger to the community.” Vazquez, slip op. at 15 (citing Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 10 || F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022)). Petitioner’s attempts to distinguish Rodriguez Diaz are 11 |}misplaced. If anything, the fact that Rodriguez Diaz dealt with an arguably arbitrary and 12 || prolonged detention militated even more strongly in favor of burden-shifting, yet it was 13 ||rejected by the Ninth Circuit. In addition, as indicated above, the Court finds insufficient 14 || evidence that there has been an entire collapse of the Immigration Court’s independence. 15 Hence, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition to the extent it requests a bond 16 || hearing before an Immigration Judge, but the Court declines to order burden-shifting at the 17 ||bond hearing or to disqualify the Immigration Court from holding the hearing. 18 CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 20 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Juana Inestroza Madrid (A#240-367-729) within 10 days of the date of this Order. The bond hearing shall be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). 22 If no bond hearing is held within 10 days, Petitioner is ordered released 73 forthwith. 24 || The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 || DATED: July 31, 2026 i ly A (Dipharb 28 H@én. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court □□□