Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ARISTIDES RIVAS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04323-RBM-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 JEREMY CASEY, in his official capacity [Doc. 1] as Warden, Imperial Regional Detention 15 Facility, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Jose Aristides Rivas’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) For the 20 reasons set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner, native and citizen of Honduras, first entered the United States without 23 inspection in 1998 and was last admitted to the United States on January 4, 2026. (Doc. 1 24 ¶¶ 5, 13.) After Honduras was designated for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) in 25 January 1999, Petitioner received TPS in 2000 and he renewed his TPS continuously until 26 the designation ended in 2025. (Id. ¶ 14.) “Petitioner has no criminal history of any kind 27 — no arrests, no charges, no convictions — in the United States or elsewhere.” (Id. ¶ 15.) 28 1 On May 25, 2026, Petitioner was stopped by Florida Highway Patrol in Hollywood, 2 Florida while he was driving to a construction site. (Id. ¶ 15.) Petitioner was not issued a 3 ticket or a citation. (Id.) Petitioner was then transported to U.S. Immigration and Customs 4 Enforcement’s (“ICE”) and was subsequently detained. (Id.) That same day, the U.S. 5 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) 6 charging him as removable under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and 7 Nationality Act (“INA”). (Id. ¶ 17.) “On May 29, 2026, DHS filed Form I-261, purporting 8 to amend the NTA, reclassifying Petitioner as an ‘arriving alien’ and alleging that he 9 ‘applied for admission at Miami, Florida on January 4, 2016, and was paroled with 10 authorization to remain for a temporary period not to exceed January 2, 6 2017.’” (Id.) On 11 June 30, 2026, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for custody 12 redetermination based on a lack of “authority to redetermine the condition of [his] custody 13 as he is an applicant for admission and is subject to mandatory detention under” INA 14 § 235(b)(2)(A). (Id. ¶ 18; see id., Ex. A at 30.) “Petitioner is presently detained at the 15 Imperial Regional Detention Facility.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 20.) 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 18 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 19 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 20 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 21 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 22 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 23 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 24 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 25 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 Petitioner claims his immigration detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the Fifth 28 Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 47–56.) Respondents cite the Ninth 1 Circuit’s recent decision in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock,—F.4th—, 2026 WL 2196424 2 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), and assert that they “do[ ] not oppose an order from this Court 3 directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226(a).” (Doc. 8 at 2.) 4 In Rodriguez Vazquez, the Ninth Circuit concluded that noncitizens “present without 5 admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the 6 detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).” 2026 WL 2196424, at *3. Because 7 there is no dispute that Petitioner was detained in the interior of the United States after 8 having resided here for more than 28 years (see Doc. 1 at 1), § 1226(a)’s discretionary 9 procedures govern Petitioner’s detention. Therefore, and in light of Respondents’ non- 10 opposition, the Petition is GRANTED. 11 The Court also finds that immediate release, rather than a bond hearing, is the 12 appropriate remedy. See E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1324 (W.D. Wash. 13 2025) (“Although the Government notes that Petitioner may request a bond hearing while 14 detained, such a post-deprivation hearing cannot serve as an adequate procedural safeguard 15 because it is after the fact and cannot prevent an erroneous deprivation of liberty.”); Jorge 16 M.F. v. Jennings, 534 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“[I]f Petitioner is detained, 17 he will already have suffered the injury he is now seeking to avoid”); Domingo v. Kaiser, 18 Case No. 25-cv-05893 (RFL), 2025 WL 1940179, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2025) (“Even 19 if Petitioner[ ] received a prompt post-detention bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 20 and was released at that point, he will have already suffered the harm that is the subject of 21 his motion; that is, his potentially erroneous detention.”).1 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly: 24 1. The Government is ORDERED to immediately release the noncitizen from custody. 25 2. The Court ORDERS that, prior to any re-detention, the noncitizen SHALL receive 26 27 1 In light of the disposition herein, the Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining 28 1 a hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) to determine 2 whether detention is warranted. 3 3. The noncitizen bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the 4 evidence, that he is not a danger to the community or a flight risk. See Rodriguez 5 Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 6 4. At any such hearing, if the immigration judge determines that bond is appropriate, 7 the immigration judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of release and the 8 noncitizen’s ability to pay.’ 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||}DATE: August 12, 2026 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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 release conditions Is unlikely to result in a bond amount that is reasonably related to the government’s legitimate interests.’’).