Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

EVELIO GARCIA PENA,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1040-JEP-MCR

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT, et al.,

Respondents.

___________________________________/

ORDER

Through counsel, Petitioner, a detainee of the United States

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking, among other relief, an order

directing Respondents to release him and to provide him with a bond hearing

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (See Doc. 1 at 9–10). Petitioner, a citizen of

Nicaragua, alleges that he entered the United States on November 13, 2022,

and was granted parole. (Id. at 4). ICE re-encountered Petitioner following a

traffic stop. (Id. at 5).1 The Federal Respondents expressly recognize that

1 While Petitioner says that the traffic stop occurred in March 2026, a

document provided by the Federal Respondents indicates that it occurred on April 6,

2026. (Compare Doc. 1 (“In March 2026, Petitioner was a passenger in a vehicle being

driven by a United States citizen. The vehicle was stopped by Florida Highway Patrol

Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Det. Ctr. Miami, 175 F.4th 1258, 1276

(11th Cir. 2026) “controls this case.” (Doc. 7 at 1–2).

This Court previously addressed claims and arguments similar to those

raised in this case, concluding that the Court has jurisdiction, but the relevant

statutory language and context support the Federal Respondents’ position that

an alien without lawful admission who has resided in the United States for

some appreciable period of time is subject to mandatory detention under

8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Diaz Lopez v. Dir. of Enf’t of Removal Operations,

817 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (M.D. Fla. 2026); see also Lozano Sousa v. Ripa, No. 3:25-

cv-1617-JEP-PDB, 2026 WL 958794 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2026).2 However, on

F

for an alleged traffic violation.”) with Doc. 7-1 at 3 (“On April 6, 2026, . . . Trooper

Vega of FHP conducted a vehicle stop.”)).

2 To the extent the Federal Respondents argue that Petitioner failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies prior to filing this case, the Court rejects their argument.

At the time Petitioner filed this case, any administrative request for a bond hearing

would have been futile, because the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) had

conclusively determined that immigration judges had no authority to consider bond

requests from aliens like Petitioner. See In re Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216,

220-28 (BIA 2025). Because the BIA had “predetermined” the issue, requiring

Petitioner to pursue further administrative remedies before the Petition was filed

would have been futile. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 148 (1992) (recognizing

that a petitioner need not exhaust administrative remedies if “the administrative

body is shown to be biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue before it”); see,

e.g., Fonseca v. Ripa, No. 3:26-cv-309-MMH-MCR, 2026 WL 1072778, at *2 (M.D. Fla.

Apr. 21, 2026) (“Requiring [the petitioner] to appeal [the immigration judge’s denial

of his request for a custody redetermination] to the BIA or make any further

administrative request for a bond hearing would be futile.”); Puga v. Assistant Field

Off. Dir., Krome N. Serv. Processing Ctr., No. 25-24535-CIV, 2025 WL 2938369, at *2

(S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2025) (“Since the result of [the p]etitioner’s custody

redetermination and any subsequent bond appeal to the BIA is nearly a foregone

May 6, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals took the opposite approach

on the substantive issue under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),

concluding that Ҥ 1225 applies to arriving aliens seeking entry at the border,

whereas § 1226 applies to aliens unlawfully in the interior.” Hernandez

Alvarez, 175 F.4th at 1276.3 As mentioned above, the Federal Respondents

F

concede that this Court is bound by the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in this case.

(Doc. 7 at 1–2).

Therefore, it is ORDERED:

1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(Doc. 1) is GRANTED as to Petitioner’s claim that his detention

without an individualized bond hearing violates the INA.4 Within

F

conclusion under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, any prudential exhaustion requirements

are excused for futility.”).

3 Although the mandate has not yet issued, the Eleventh Circuit’s published

opinion has immediate precedential effect. See Martin v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 944,

945 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting that a published opinion “is the law in this circuit

unless and until it is reversed, overruled, vacated, or otherwise modified by the

Supreme Court of the United States or by [the Eleventh Circuit] sitting en banc,” and

that a stay of the mandate “in no way affects the duty of . . . the courts in this circuit

to apply now the precedent established by” the published opinion “as binding

authority”); 11th Cir. IOP—Cir. R. 36.2 (“Under the law of this circuit, published

opinions are binding precedent. The issuance or non-issuance of the mandate does

not affect this result.”).

4 Because the Court grants relief on Petitioner’s claim under the INA, the

Court need not address Petitioner’s other claims. See Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668,

689 n.10 (2004) (declining to address an additional claim in a habeas petition after

granting relief on another claim because “any relief [petitioner] could obtain on that

claim would be cumulative”).

seven days of this Order, Respondents shall either afford

Petitioner an individualized bond hearing consistent with 8 U.S.C.

§ 1226(a) or release Petitioner. If Respondents release Petitioner,

they shall facilitate his transportation from the detention facility

by notifying his counsel when and where he can be collected.

2. The Warden’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) is DENIED for the same

reasons stated in Lanvin- Valdez v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enft,

No. 3:26-CV-180-JEP-SJH, 2026 WL 1004569, at *2—3 (M.D. Fla.

Apr. 14, 2026).

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment granting the petition,

terminate any pending motions as moot, and close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on July 1, 2026.

JORDAN E. PRATT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cc:

Counsel of Record