Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOAN MINH TRUONG, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04204-RBM-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. [Doc. 1] Department of Homeland Security, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Toan Minh Truong’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) challenging the lawfulness of his 20 immigration detention. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner, a citizen of Vietnam, entered the United States without inspection on or 23 about October 9, 2023. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 2, 4.) The United States Department of Homeland 24 Security “permitted Petitioner to reside in the community subject to ICE reporting 25 requirements.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Petitioner resided in the United States continuously since then, 26 complying with reporting requirements, getting married and having his wife file a Petition 27 for Alien Relative, and accruing no criminal history. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 9–15.) On June 30, 2026, 28 Petitioner attended a scheduled ICE check-in, where he was detained and taken to Otay 1 Mesa Detention Center. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8.) Petitioner has not received a bond hearing because 2 immigration judges lack jurisdiction to hold them under agency precedent. (Id. ¶ 17.) 3 On July 22, 2026, Petitioner filed his Petition. (Doc. 1.) The Court set a briefing 4 schedule the next day. (Doc. 2.) Respondents filed their Response to Petition on July 30, 5 2026. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner was authorized to file a reply on or before August 6, 2026, but 6 did not file one. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 9 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 10 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 11 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 12 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 13 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 14 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 15 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 16 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process 19 Clause. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 119–154.) Respondents argue “that Petitioner is subject to mandatory 20 detention under § 1225(b)(2),” but “do[ ] not oppose the petition and defer[ ] to the Court 21 on the appropriate relief.” (Doc. 4 at 1–2.) 22 After the Petition was fully briefed, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Rodriguez 23 Vazquez v. Bostock, — F. 4th —, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). In Rodriguez 24 Vazquez, the Ninth Circuit rejected Respondents’ argument, concluding that noncitizens 25 “present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are 26 subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).” Id. at *3. Because there 27 is no dispute that Petitioner was detained in the interior of the United States after having 28 resided here for three years (see Doc. 1 ¶¶ 2, 4, 7), the discretionary detention procedures 1 of § 1226(a) govern Petitioner’s detention. Therefore, and in light of Respondents’ non- 2 opposition, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 3 The Court also finds that immediate release, rather than a bond hearing, is the 4 appropriate remedy. See E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1324 (W.D. Wash. 5 2025) (“Although the Government notes that Petitioner may request a bond hearing while 6 detained, such a post-deprivation hearing cannot serve as an adequate procedural safeguard 7 because it is after the fact and cannot prevent an erroneous deprivation of liberty.”); Jorge 8 M.F. v. Jennings, 534 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“if Petitioner is detained, 9 he will already have suffered the injury he is now seeking to avoid”); Domingo v. Kaiser, 10 Case No. 25-cv-05893 (RFL), 2025 WL 1940179, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2025) (“Even 11 if Petitioner[] received a prompt post-detention bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 12 was released at that point, he will have already suffered the harm that is the subject of his 13 motion; that is, his potentially erroneous detention.”). 14 IV. CONCLUSION1 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly: 16 1. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, 17 subject to his preexisting reporting requirements. 18 2. The Court ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner shall 19 receive a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether detention is 20 warranted. At any such hearing, the noncitizen SHALL BEAR the burden of 21 establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is not a danger to the 22 community or a risk of flight.2 23 3. At any such hearing, if the immigration judge determines that bond is appropriate, 24 the immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of release and the 25 26 27 1 In light of the disposition herein, the Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining grounds for relief. 28 1 noncitizen’s ability to pay. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || DATE: August 7, 2026 4 Cet Berrnidlr, □□ oitttrygs □ 5 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 || 26 See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A bond determination 27 ||process that does not include consideration of financial circumstances and alternative 28 release conditions is unlikely to result in a bond amount that 1s reasonably related to the government’s legitimate interests.’’).