Background
Arnoldo Marcelino Chevez-Alvarez, detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, filed this habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It was his second and successive petition. In his first case, he won a conditional writ of habeas corpus on August 31, 2026, which ordered his release by no later than September 8, 2026, unless the government gave him a so-called Rodriguez bond hearing at which the government bore the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
That bond hearing evidently did not take place until September 10, 2026 — two days past the court-ordered deadline. At the hearing, petitioner was ordered detained pending removal proceedings based on a flight-risk finding. Petitioner did not challenge the flight-risk determination itself, likely because federal collateral review of such findings is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). Instead, he sought an accounting of why the hearing was not held by September 8 and an order of release upon a finding of noncompliance with the August 31 judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition. Even assuming the two-day delay amounted to an inexcusable due process violation, the court concluded that petitioner could not demonstrate prejudice from such a short delay. The court relied on Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008), and drew support from United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711, 721 (1990), which observed that an order of release in the face of the government's ability to prove at once that detention is required by law has neither causal nor proportional relation to any harm caused by the delay in holding the hearing.
The court also rejected any suggestion that respondents could be held in contempt for violating the strict terms of the August 31 judgment. It noted that substantial compliance with a court order is a defense to an action for civil contempt, citing Coleman v. Newsom, 131 F.4th 948, 956 (9th Cir. 2025), which in turn quoted General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986). The petition was denied, and the court stated that judgment would be entered accordingly dismissing the § 2241 action.
Key Takeaways
- A two-day delay in convening a court-ordered bond hearing, even if it were an inexcusable due process violation, does not establish the prejudice needed to support habeas relief.
- The Supreme Court's reasoning in Montalvo-Murillo — that release is not a proportional remedy when detention is legally justified — applies to short delays in immigration bond hearings.
- The court found it near impossible to imagine holding respondents in contempt for the two-day delay even if they were responsible for it, given the substantial-compliance defense.
- Federal courts lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) to second-guess flight-risk findings made at bond hearings on collateral review.
- A conditional writ of habeas corpus that sets a deadline for a bond hearing does not automatically entitle the petitioner to release if the hearing is held shortly after the deadline.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces that minor procedural delays in immigration bond hearings — even those that miss a court-imposed deadline — will not yield habeas relief absent a showing of actual prejudice. It also confirms that the substantial-compliance doctrine shields government officials from contempt when they substantially perform under a conditional writ, even if they fall short of strict adherence to its timeline.
The decision illustrates the limited remedies available to immigration detainees who prevail on conditional habeas petitions: while the writ can compel a bond hearing, brief delays in convening that hearing are unlikely to produce release or sanctions, particularly when the detainee is ultimately found to be a flight risk at the hearing itself.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket