Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JUAN ROGELIO TOL ALVA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04408-RBM-GC 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 11 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 12 DAVID VENTURELLA, Acting Director of [Doc. 1] U.S. ICE, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Petitioner Juan Rogelio Tol Alva’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 17 Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) For the reasons 18 below, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States with his wife and two 21 children on August 26, 2023 for an appointment made through the CBP One application. 22 (Id. ¶ 63.) Petitioner and his family were paroled into the United States on that day and 23 settled in Florida. (Id. ¶ 9.) Petitioner has lived here continuously since, supporting his 24 family through agricultural and field maintenance work and applying for asylum on 25 September 29, 2025. (Id.) 26 On or about May 3, 2026, Petitioner was taken into custody after being charged for 27 driving without a license. (Id. ¶ 10.) On June 3, 2026, Petitioner was sentenced to time 28 served and, upon his release from state custody, transferred into immigration custody. (Id. 1 ¶ 11.) He was then transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he remains. (Id.) 2 On August 1, 2026, Petitioner filed his Petition. (Doc. 1.) The Court set a briefing schedule 3 shortly thereafter. (Doc. 3.) Respondents filed their Response to Petition on August 10, 4 2026. (Doc. 5.) Petitioner filed his Reply on August 17, 2026. (Doc. 6.) 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 7 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 8 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 9 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 10 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 11 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 12 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 13 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 14 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, 17 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 70–85.) 18 Respondents, citing the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock, 19 — F.4th —, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), “acknowledge[ ] that Petitioner is 20 subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)” and “do[ ] not oppose the petition.” (Doc. 21 5 at 2.) Petitioner does not oppose a bond hearing, but argues that it should occur sooner 22 than the fourteen days Respondents request. (Doc. 6 at 2.) In light of Rodriguez Vasquez 23 and Respondents’ non-opposition, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 24 IV. CONCLUSION1 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly: 26 27 1 In light of the disposition herein, the Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining 28 1 1. Respondents are ORDERED to arrange an individualized bond hearing for 2 Petitioner before an immigration judge within seven (7) days of entry of this 3 Order—aunless the noncitizen requests a continuance—to determine whether his 4 continued detention is warranted. 5 2. The noncitizen SHALL BEAR the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of 6 the evidence, that he is not a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” If the 7 noncitizen does not request a continuance, and no hearing occurs within seven (7) 8 days of entry of this Order, Petitioner shall be released from Respondents’ custody. 9 3. If the immigration judge determines that bond is appropriate, the immigration judge 10 SHALL consider alternative conditions of release and the noncitizen’s ability to 11 pay.’ 12 4. Onor before August 31, 2026, Respondents SHALL FILE a status report indicating 13 whether Petitioner received a bond hearing, and the outcome of that bond hearing. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ||DATE: August 17, 2026 16 Cet Barman, Mittasyyes □ 7 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 3 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 is reasonably related to the government’s legitimate interests.’’).