Jose Luis Basulto-Araujo v. Todd Blanche, U.S. Attorney General, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 17 Basulto-Araujo in obta
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by a detained non-citizen alleging a violation of due process due to the lack of an individualized bond hearing. The court granted the petition, ordered the government to provide a bond hearing within 14 days with the burden of proof on the government, and denied the TRO as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Mr. Basulto-Araujo’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.” | agree with court The order recites that the government does not oppose an order directing a bond hearing. In the context of a § 2241 petition where the respondent does not oppose the specific relief requested (a bond hearing), granting the petition to effectuate that relief is a standard procedural outcome. The court's decision follows from the government's concession and the legal premise that prolonged detention without a bond hearing may violate due process. |
Denying the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as moot“Mr. Basulto-Araujo’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED MOOT.” | agree with court Because the court granted the underlying petition and ordered the specific relief (a bond hearing) that the TRO likely sought to secure or expedite, the TRO is no longer necessary. Denying a TRO as moot when the underlying claim is resolved or the requested relief is granted via the main petition is procedurally correct. |
Ordering an individualized bond hearing within 14 days with the burden of proof on the government“The government shall provide Basulto-Araujo with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order... At the hearing, the government SHALL BEAR the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Basulto-Araujo would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.” | agree with court The order imposes specific procedural requirements consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent regarding due process in immigration detention. Requiring the government to prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence aligns with the standard applied in cases like *Rodriguez v. Robbins* and *Diouf v. Napolitano* (though not cited, the standard is well-established in the 9th Cir). The 14-day timeframe is a reasonable judicial directive to ensure prompt compliance. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and relies on the government's non-opposition to grant the petition. It correctly cites Ninth Circuit authority for the specific procedural requirements of the bond hearing (burden of proof, consideration of ability to pay, access to recordings). The reasoning is sufficient for a consent-based or non-opposed § 2241 grant where the primary issue is the procedural mechanism for the bond hearing rather than a complex constitutional dispute.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LUIS BASULTO-ARAUJO, Case No.: 26cv3699-LL-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING FIRST 13 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 14 TODD BLANCHE, U.S. Attorney U.S.C. § 2241 AND DENYING AS General, et al., 15 MOOT MOTION FOR Respondents. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 16 ORDER 17 [ECF Nos. 9, 2] 18 19 20 Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Luis Basulto-Araujo’s First Amended Petition for 21 Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his prolonged detention 22 without an individualized bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process 23 Clause. ECF No. 9 at 2. Petitioner also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 24 ECF No. 2. 25 The government filed a Response stating that it does not oppose an order from this 26 Court directing a bond hearing, at which the government would bear the burden of proof. 27 ECF No. 10. 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 2 1. Mr. Basulto-Araujo’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 3 ||GRANTED. 4 2. Mr. Basulto-Araujo’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED 5 MOOT. 6 3. The government shall provide Basulto-Araujo with an individualized bond 7 ||hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, 8 |}unless Mr. Basulto-Araujo requests a continuance. 9 a. At the hearing, the government SHALL BEAR the burden of 10 establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Basulto-Araujo would 11 likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released. 12 b. The immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of 13 release and Mr. Basulto-Araujo’s ability to pay bond if he or she determines 14 bond is appropriate. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 (9th Cir. 15 2017). 16 C. If requested by Mr. Basulto-Araujo, the government SHALL assist Mr. 17 Basulto-Araujo in obtaining the audio recording of the bond hearing. Martinez 18 v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 19 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011)). 20 4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Mr. Basulto-Araujo’s favor and 21 || close this case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: August 7, 2026 NO 24 nF 25 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 27 28