Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENRY JEHOVANY AGUIRRE Case No.: 26-CV-4294 JLS (GC) SANCHEZ, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Petitioner, 13 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF v. HABEAS CORPUS 14 PATRICK DIVVER, et al., 15 (ECF No. 1) Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Henry Jehovany Aguirre Sanchez’s Petition for a Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court 20 are Respondents’ Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF No. 4) and 21 Petitioner’s Traverse (“Traverse,” ECF No. 5). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 22 GRANTS IN PART the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras, alleges that he has been detained by the United 25 States Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs 26 Enforcement (“ICE”) division at the Imperial Regional Detention Center since June 17, 27 2026. Pet. ¶ 30. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2012 and has 28 never encountered immigration authorities. Id. ¶¶ 25–29. Petitioner was arrested on June 1 17, 2026, when he was returning home from work in Buffalo, New York. Id. ¶ 30. 2 Petitioner alleges that his detention without an administrative warrant or pre-deprivation 3 hearing violates the process set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 31–37. 4 LEGAL STANDARD 5 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 6 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of 7 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial 8 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the 9 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, 10 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 11 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising 12 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention— 13 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 14 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 15 583 U.S. 281 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 2018) 16 (citations omitted). 17 DISCUSSION 18 Petitioner argues, and Respondents do not contest, that Petitioner’s detention is 19 governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See generally Pet.; Ret. However, the Parties disagree 20 as to whether a bond hearing or release is warranted in this case. See id. The Ninth Circuit 21 held that unadmitted non-citizens present in the interior of the United States are subject to 22 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and are not subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 23 No. 25-6842, --- F.4th --- (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). Respondents acknowledge that 24 Petitioner “is an unadmitted alien present in the interior of the United States” and therefore 25 “is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Ret. at 1. Respondents do not oppose 26 an order directing a bond hearing to be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 1–2. 27 Petitioner argues that he should be released based on a failure to issue an administrative 28 1 warrant pursuant to § 1226(a). See Pet. ¶¶ 61–67; Traverse at 4–6. Respondents do not 2 address the apparent lack of a warrant in detaining Petitioner. See generally Ret. 3 The Court finds that release is not the appropriate remedy in this case. Section 4 1226(a) states that, “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested 5 and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United 6 States.” In general, “when arrests are made without a warrant, a custody determination 7 must ordinarily be made within 48 hours, accompanied by a notice to appear, and in the 8 case of continued custody a warrant will be issued post hoc.” Lopez-Perez v. Johnson, No. 9 1:26-CV-03083 JLT SAB (HC), 2026 WL 1506818, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2026) 10 (quoting Garcia De Melo v. Stamper, No. 1:26-CV-00152-JAW, 2026 WL 925672, at *5 11 (D. Me. Apr. 6, 2026)). Therefore, as with the Eastern District in Lopez-Perez and the 12 District of Maine in Garcia De Melo, the Court concludes that Respondents’ forty-eight- 13 hour clock to conduct an initial custody determination starts running with the issuance of 14 this Order. As the court in Garcia Del Melo explained, to hold otherwise would “place 15 Respondents in the untenable position in future cases presenting similar circumstances, in 16 which Respondents must decide whether to deliberately violate controlling agency 17 precedent in anticipation of a possible objection a detainee may or may not raise in a future 18 habeas petition not yet before this Court, and then further guess how this Court might 19 rule.”1 Garcia De Melo, 2026 WL 925672, at *5. The Court thus DENIES the Petition to 20 the extent it seeks release. 21 The Court instead finds that a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. As 22 Respondents agree and do not oppose an order directing a bond hearing, the Court 23 GRANTS the Petition to the extent it seeks a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 28 1 At the time of Petitioner’s arrest, June 17, 2026, the decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25- I CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition for a Writ of 3 || Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1). The Court ORDERS that within 48 hours of this Order, 4 ||Respondents SHALL CONDUCT an initial custody determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 5 || 1226(a), at which point they may (1) release Petitioner or (2) continue his detention if 6 ||deemed appropriate. If Petitioner is not released, and no arrest warrant has been issued, 7 || Respondents SHALL SEEK an arrest warrant immediately. If the warrant is not granted, 8 || Respondents SHALL RELEASE Petitioner immediately. 9 If a warrant is granted, the Government SHALL PROVIDE Petitioner with an 10 || individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the 11 |/initial custody determination, unless Petitioner, the non-citizen, requests a continuance. 12 Bond SHALL NOT be denied on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory 13 ||detention. The non-citizen bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the 14 || evidence, that they are not a danger to the community or a flight risk. See Rodriguez Diaz 15 Garland, 53 F 4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 16 The Parties SHALL FILE (1) a joint status report informing the Court of the 17 || outcome of the custody determination on or before August 12, 2026, and (2) if a warrant 18 |/is granted, a joint status report informing the Court of the outcome of the bond hearing or 19 || Petitioner’s request for a continuance on or before September 4, 2026. The Clerk of Court 20 || SHALL CLOSE the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: August 6, 2026 on. Janis L. Sammartino 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28