Background
Jose Gerardo Avalos, a native and citizen of Mexico who was held at the ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, California, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 3, 2026. He alleged that his detention violated procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment and sought a bond hearing, declaratory relief, and other injunctive relief. The petition stated that he reentered the United States without inspection in March 2015 after a 2011 removal, had substantial ties to the country including a U.S.-citizen child, and was detained during a targeted enforcement operation on June 23, 2026. He received a Notice to Appear but no bond hearing.
The petition also described a lengthy arrest history, a pending felony vandalism case, and alleged serious medical conditions and inadequate care. Those matters formed part of the record but were not the basis for the court's ultimate ruling. Respondents filed a response on September 11, 2026, and the court directed the parties to supplement the record. Respondents submitted exhibits on September 22, 2026; Avalos did not separately respond to that supplementation order but filed a traverse on November 2, 2026. Respondents conceded that § 1226(a) governed Avalos's detention and that he was entitled to a bond hearing under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym first concluded that the court had habeas jurisdiction because Avalos challenged the legality of his custody under the Fifth Amendment. The court rejected potential jurisdictional barriers in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(g). Relying on Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority, it explained that those provisions do not eliminate jurisdiction over a detention challenge independent of the specified actions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.
On the merits, the court agreed that Avalos was entitled to an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a). Rodriguez Vazquez held that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are governed by § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), and persons detained under § 1226(a) face discretionary detention and may seek bond. The court also discussed the Bond Eligible class definition in Bautista and the later vacatur of Matter of Yajure Hurtado. Because Avalos entered without inspection and was apprehended inside the United States, and respondents did not oppose the hearing, the statutory ground resolved the petition. The court expressly declined to reach his constitutional claims.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered that judgment will be entered granting the § 2241 petition for Avalos.
- Respondents must provide an individualized bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker under § 1226(a) within seven days, unless Avalos requests and receives a continuance.
- If the required hearing is not held within that period, respondents must release Avalos, subject to the same continuance exception.
- Respondents must file a compliance status report no later than November 16, 2026.
- The decision rests on the applicable detention statute and Rodriguez Vazquez, leaving Avalos's procedural and substantive due process claims unaddressed.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez framework to an individual habeas petition and treats an interior apprehension following entry without inspection as falling within § 1226(a)'s discretionary detention regime. The government's concession narrowed the dispute, but the court independently stated its agreement and supplied a jurisdictional analysis before ordering relief.
The remedy is a prompt custody-redetermination opportunity, not a determination that Avalos must receive bond or that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment. The order instead requires a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, provides release as the consequence of missing the seven-day deadline absent a petitioner-requested continuance, and requires a compliance report. The constitutional claims remain unresolved because the statutory entitlement made deciding them unnecessary.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket