The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DANIEL ANTONIO RAMIREZ PEREZ, No. 1:26-cv-00277-DJC-CKD
12
Petitioner,
13
v. ORDER
14
CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Pet. (ECF No. 1)) and a
18 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Mot. (ECF No. 4-1)) seeking reinstatement of
19 a bond order previously issued by an Immigration Judge.
20 Petitioner entered the country without inspection in April 2023. (Mot. (ECF No.
21 4-1) at 3.) He applied for asylum on May 1, 2023, with the assistance of a friend. (Id.)
22 Petitioner asserts the friend erroneously listed the wrong address for Petitioner. (Id.)
23 Petitioner moved addresses shortly after filing this application and did not inform the
24 Government of his new address. (Id.) Due to this mix-up, Petitioner asserts he did not
25 receive notice of his asylum interview as well as two subsequent Notices to Appear
26 and failed to appear for that reason. (Id. at 3–4.) Petitioner has provided this Court
27 with some evidence indicating one of the Notices to Appear were sent to this
28 incorrect address. (See Morales Decl. (ECF No. 1-1), Ex. A at 1.) The Department of
1 Homeland Security arrested and detained Petitioner on June 21, 2025, more than two
2 years after he entered the country. (Mot. at 4.)
3 On September 4, 2025, Petitioner was provided a bond hearing before an
4 Immigration Judge. (See Morales Decl., Ex. C.) At this hearing, the Immigration
5 Judge granted Petitioner a $12,000 bond. (Id.; Mot. at 4.) The Government then filed
6 a notice of automatic stay with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) such that
7 Petitioner was unable to post bond. (Id. at 5.) The following day, the BIA issued a
8 decision holding that noncitizens such as Petitioner are subject to mandatory
9 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and, therefore, ineligible for a bond hearing.
10 (See Mot. at 5 (citing Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025)).) The
11 Government then sought, and the Immigration Judge granted, a reversal of their prior
12 decision granting bond in light of that BIA decision due to lack of jurisdiction. (Id.)
13 The Court’s prior orders are largely dispositive on the issues raised in the
14 Petition and Motion. See Morillo v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01533-DJC-AC, 2025 WL
15 3190899 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2025); E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-01906-DJC-JDP,
16 2025 WL 3707140 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025). For the reasons stated in those cases,
17 Petitioner has established that he has a likelihood of success on the merits. As
18 Petitioner has been present in the United States for over two years (Mot. at 3–4) he is
19 correct that he does not qualify as an “applicant for admission” and thus cannot be
20 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). See Morillo, 2025 WL 3707140, at *4. Thus,
21 Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that he is entitled to the
22 procedures and rights afforded under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), most notably, a bond
23 hearing.
24 The Court declines, however, to reinstate the prior decision granting bond.
25 The Court orders a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge as that is the process
26 required by section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, and Petitioner has
27 presented no caselaw indicating another result is required at this stage. That said, the
28 Court takes no position on whether failure to issue a decision on substantially similar
1 terms would violate some other provision of law, such as the Administrative
2 Procedures Act.
3 Petitioner has also established irreparable harm based on the deprivation of
4 constitutional rights via immigration detention. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d
5 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 995 (9th Cir.
6 2017). Respondents argue Petitioner’s “long delay in seeking injunctive relief implies
7 a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.” (Opp’n (ECF No. 7) at 3 (internal quotation
8 marks omitted).) Respondents are incorrect that a delay in seeking relief, let alone
9 one of merely four months, renders detention less harmful or the need for relief less
10 urgent. Detained individuals are harmed each additional day they are deprived of
11 their liberty. Each day Petitioner is in custody, he continues to be separated from his
12 newborn daughter. (See Mot. at 7.) Petitioner has thus established irreparable harm.
13 The balance of the equities and public interest are merged as the Government
14 is the non-moving party, and these factors clearly weigh in Petitioner’s favor. See
15 Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012); Baird v. Bonta, 81 F.4th 1036,
16 1042 (9th Cir. 2023); Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2025)
17 (“[T]he public has a strong interest in upholding procedural protections against
18 unlawful detention, and the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the costs to the public of
19 immigration detention are staggering.”). Because the Government cannot assert that
20 it is harmed by application of the correct law, the Court finds “there is no realistic
21 likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining his or her conduct.” Jorgensen v.
22 Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, the Court concludes no security is
23 required here.
24 Accordingly, as all of the Winter factors weigh in Petitioner’s favor, IT IS HEREBY
25 ORDERED that:
26 1. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 4) is
27 GRANTED.
28
1 2. Within seven (7) days of this Order, Petitioner shall be afforded a bond
2 hearing before an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its
3 implementing regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond is
4 considered, and Petitioner may have his counsel present.
5 3. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before February 2,
6 2026, as to why this Court should not issue a preliminary injunction on the
7 same terms as this Order. The Respondents’ failure to respond to the Order
8 to Show Cause shall be construed as its non-opposition to the Court
9 granting a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms and conditions imposed
10 in this Order. See LR. 230(c). On or before February 5, 2026, Petitioner
11 may file a Reply, if any. The Preliminary Injunction is not currently set for a
12 hearing, but the Court may subsequently order one if it determines a
13 hearing is necessary.
14
15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 | Dated: _ January 24, 2026 “Darel A Ch brett
Hon. Daniel alabretta
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20 | DJc7 - Perez26cv00277.tro
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28