Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 Case No.: 3:26-cv-04134-LEK-BJW FELIPE ALVARADO CHIC, 5 Petitioner, 6 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITION 7 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

8 FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior CAUSE WITHIN 3 DAYS; AND TO 9 Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center; ENJOIN TRANSFER FROM THE 10 GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, Field JURISDICTION Office Director of Enforcement Removal 11 Operations, San Diego Field Office, 12 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD BLANCHE, U.S. Attorney 13 General; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 14 IMMIGRATION REVIEW; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, 15 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 16 Respondents. 17 18 Before this Court is Petitioner Felipe Alvarado Chic’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus; for an Order to Show Cause Within 3 Days; and to Enjoin 20 Transfer from the Jurisdiction (“Petition”), filed on July 18, 2026. [Dkt. no. 1.] The 21 respondents, identified in the Petition as Christopher J. LaRose, Senior Warden of Otay 22 Mesa Detention Center; Gregory J. Archambeault, Field Office Director of Enforcement 23 Removal Operations, San Diego Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 24 Todd Blanche, U.S. Attorney General; Executive Office for Immigration Review; and 25 Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS” and 26 27 1 collectively “Respondents”), filed a response to the Petition (“Response”) on July 20, 2 2026. [Dkt. no. 4.] 3 Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States as a minor in 4 September 2012, and has remained in the United States since that time. See Petition at 5 ¶¶ 9, 19, 30. Petitioner was apprehended shortly after entering the United States, but he 6 was later released from DHS custody to live with a family member. See id. at ¶ 9. 7 Petitioner is now twenty-eight years old. [Id., Exh. 6 (Declaration of Felipe Alvarado 8 Chic with English translation) at ¶ 2.] Petitioner is married and has three children who are 9 United States citizens. See Petition at ¶ 10. 10 Petitioner was detained by DHS officers on July 4, 2026, and he has been 11 detained since that time. See id. at ¶¶ 12, 19. He is currently detained at the Otay Mesa 12 Detention Center. See id. at ¶ 19. Petitioner asserts that he is being unlawfully detained, 13 purportedly pursuant to Title 8 United States Code Section 1225(b)(2). See id. at ¶ 32. 14 Petitioner seeks his immediate release or, in the alternative, a bond hearing under Title 8 15 United States Code Section 1226(a). See id. at pgs. 11-12. 16 Respondents state “that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 17 § 1225(b)(2).” [Response at 2.] Respondents, however, “acknowledge[] that this Court, 18 and Courts in this District, have repeatedly reached the opposite conclusion under the 19 same and/or similar facts.” [Id. at 2 (collecting cases).] Respondents, therefore, “do[] not 20 oppose the petition and defer[] to the Court on the appropriate relief.” [Id. at 3.] 21 After the Petition was fully briefed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 22 issued its opinion in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, 2026 WL 2196424 23 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). In Rodriguez Vazquez, the Ninth Circuit held that noncitizens 24 “present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are 25 subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).” Id. at *3. Because there 26 is no dispute that Petitioner was detained in the interior of the United States after having 27 entered the United States in 2012, see Petition at ¶¶ 9, 19, the discretionary detention 28 1 procedures of Section 1226(a) govern Petitioner’s detention. Accordingly, this Court 2 grants Petitioner’s request for a bond hearing.1 In addition, this Court makes the 3 following orders regarding the bond hearing: 4 -the hearing must be held within seven days after the filing of this order;2 5 -the hearing must be before a fair, neutral, and open-minded immigration judge; 6 -the immigration judge shall determine whether Petitioner is a danger to the community 7 or a flight risk and what bond conditions, if any, would be appropriate to ensure 8 Petitioner’s appearance; 9 -the immigration judge shall consider whether alternatives to detention are appropriate 10 and, if a bond is considered, the immigration judge shall consider Petitioner’s 11 ability to pay; 12 -if the immigration judge denies bond, the immigration judge must make specific 13 findings as to why Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community; and 14 -if Petitioner believes that Respondents or the immigration judge violated this order and 15 the writ, Petitioner can apply to this Court for appropriate sanctions. 16 17 18 19 1 In light of this Court’s determination that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing, this Court need not address Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process claim, [Petition at 20 pgs. 10-11]. See Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193, 205 21 (2009) (“normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). 22 23 2 This Court denies Respondents’ request to allow Petitioner’s individualized bond hearing to be held within fourteen days after the filing of this order. See Response at 3 24 n.3. Petitioner’s interest in an expeditious remedy for the violation of his statutory rights 25 outweighs the general concerns cited by Respondents. If there is a case-specific reason why Petitioner’s individualized bond hearing cannot be held within seven days, 26 Respondents may file a motion to extend the deadline. Respondents’ motion must, at a 27 minimum, establish the reason why an extension is necessary through a declaration or other supporting documents. 28 1 Petitioner has also requested that this Court award him attorney’s fees and costs. See 2 Petition at pg. 12. This Court will consider an application requesting reasonable 3 attorney’s fees and costs that is filed within thirty days of the entry of judgment. This 4 Court, therefore, denies Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs without 5 prejudice. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Felipe Alvarado Chic’s Petition for 8 Writ of Habeas Corpus; for an Order to Show Cause Within 3 Days; and to Enjoin 9 Transfer from the Jurisdiction, filed July 18, 2026, is GRANTED IN PART AND 10 DENIED IN PART. The Petition is GRANTED insofar as Respondents are ORDERED 11 to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under Title 8 United States 12 Code Section 1226(a) by August 13, 2026. Respondents are FURTHER ORDERED to 13 conduct the individualized bond hearing consistent with the terms of this Order. The 14 Petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Petitioner’s request for immediate 15 release from custody. Further, the Petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to 16 Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. 17 The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint status report informing this Court 18 of the outcome of the bond hearing by August 20, 2026. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 6, 2026. 2 sTeuny 3 S&S 8 % 4 : ‘a /s! Leslie E. Kobayashi 5 Senior U.S. District Judge 6 Dire to 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 74 || RELIPE ALVARADO CHIC VS. CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, ET AL.; CASE NO. 3:26-C V-04134-LEK-BJW; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 25 PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; FOR AN ORDER TO %6 SHOW CAUSE WITHIN 3 DAYS; AND TO ENJOIN TRANSFER FROM THE JURISDICTION 27 28