# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · March 9, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11376674

## Case

- **Full name:** Julio Cortes-Ontiveros v. Warden, California City Corrections Center, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** March 9, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11376674

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JULIO CORTES-ONTIVEROS, No. 1:26-cv-01259 DC CSK
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GRANTING PETITIONER’S WRIT OF
13 v. HABEAS CORPUS
14 WARDEN, California City Corrections
Center, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16

17
18 Petitioner Julio Cortes-Ontiveros, who entered the United States without inspection on or
19 around 2006, has filed a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1
20 On or about January 8, 2026, petitioner was arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration and
21 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers while leaving his New York residence. This habeas
22 action concerns petitioner’s January 8, 2026 detention. For the reasons that follow, the Court
23 recommends granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and that petitioner be provided with
24 a bond hearing.
25 ///
26 ///
27
1 Petitioner paid the filing fee and is proceeding through counsel. This matter proceeds before
28 the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(17).
1 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
2 Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in approximately 2006. (ECF No.
3 1 at 5.) Petitioner has resided in the United States continuously since that time. (Id. at 2.)
4 Petitioner has never been removed and has no final order of removal. (Id. at 2, 3.) Petitioner was
5 arrested by ICE officers on or about January 8, 2026 when petitioner was leaving his residence in
6 New York. (Id. at 2, 5.) Petitioner alleges that he has not sought a bond hearing because doing
7 so would be futile where, on information and belief, the Department of Homeland Security is
8 asserting detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). (Id. at 3.) Petitioner was transferred from
9 New York to California City Corrections Center. (Id.)
10 Respondents do not contest petitioner’s factual allegations. (See ECF No. 7.)
11 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
12 On February 12, 2026, petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.)
13 On February 20, 2026, respondents filed an answer to the petition. (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner did
14 not file a reply/traverse. (See Docket.) Briefing is now complete.
15 III. LEGAL STANDARD
16 The Constitution guarantees the availability of the writ of habeas corpus “to every individual
17 detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const.,
18 Art I, § 9, cl. 2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality
19 of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”
20 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A writ of habeas corpus may be granted to a
21 petitioner who demonstrates that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law.
22 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Historically, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing
23 the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest.”
24 I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). A district court’s habeas jurisdiction includes challenges
25 to immigration detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
26
2 Petitioner filed a verified habeas petition. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) A court “may treat the allegations
27 of a verified . . . petition [for writ of habeas corpus] as an affidavit.” L. v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d
919, 924 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197-98 (9th Cir. 1987)).
28 Respondents do not contest petitioner’s factual allegations. (See ECF No. 7.)
1 IV. DISCUSSION
2 Generally, noncitizens are subject to civil immigration detention only if the noncitizen
3 presents a risk of flight or danger to the community. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (holding that
4 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) does not authorize indefinite detention). Petitioner challenges his
5 continued detention based on violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.3 (ECF No. 1 at 3-
6 4.) Respondents do not argue that petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community and
7 instead argue that as an “applicant for admission,” petitioner’s detention is mandatory under
8 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and he is ineligible for a bond hearing. (ECF No. 7 at 1-2.) Respondents
9 cite Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), in support of their
10 position that § 1225(b)(2) is applicable here. (Id. at 1.) Respondents also argue that petitioner
11 does not possess a right to freedom from immigration detention in any form other than the form
12 provided by Congress. (Id. at 2.) In the alternative, respondents request that the Court stay this
13 matter pending resolution of Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.). (Id.)
14 The issue here is whether petitioner, who has lived in the United States since 2006, is
15 detained pursuant to § 1226(a), as petitioner argues, or whether petitioner is now subject to
16 mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), as respondents argue. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) mandates
17 detention during removal proceedings for applicants “seeking admission” and does not provide
18 for a bond hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) “provides the general process for arresting and detaining
19 [noncitizens] who are present in the United States and eligible for removal.” Rodriguez Diaz v.
20 Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022). Under § 1226(a), the government makes an initial
21 custody determination, and the noncitizen will be released upon a showing “to the satisfaction of
22 the officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the
23 [noncitizen] is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1196
24 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8)). Section 1226(a) provides “an initial bond hearing before a neutral
25 decisionmaker, the opportunity to be represented by counsel and to present evidence, the right to
26 appeal, and the right to seek a new hearing when circumstances materially change.” Id. at 1202.
27
3 Although petitioner makes a passing reference to due process, the petition does not raise a due
28 process claim. (See ECF No. 1 at 4.)
1 Therefore, “[i]f the noncitizen is detained under section 1226(a), she is entitled to a bond
2 hearing.” Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 2025 WL 3458802, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) (citing
3 Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018)). Respondents contend § 1225(b)(2) applies
4 because petitioner is an “applicant for admission” and therefore subject to mandatory detention.
5 (ECF No. 7 at 2-3.)
6 The Court concludes that § 1226(a) applies to petitioner. This Court agrees with and joins
7 the majority of courts nationwide, including the Eastern District of California, in rejecting
8 respondent’s new interpretation4 of Sections 1225 and 1226. See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock,
9 2025 WL 2782499, at *1, 21-22 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (concluding, after a thorough
10 analysis, that “the government’s [interpretation of § 1225] belies the statutory text of the
11 [Immigration and Nationality Act], canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and
12 longstanding agency practice”); J.Y.L.C. v. Bostock, 2025 WL 3169865, at *2 (D. Or. Nov. 12,
13 2025) (collecting more than thirty cases rejecting the government’s assertion that § 1225
14 empowers DHS to arrest and hold a noncitizen present without legal status who has spent years in
15 the U.S.); Cardona-Lozano v Noem, 2025 WL 3218244, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2025)
16 (“Repeatedly, [district courts across the country] have found that DHS and the [Board of
17 Immigration Appeals’] construction of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] is incorrect and
18 that petitioners who have long resided in the United States but are being held under § 1225 are
19 entitled to relief.”) (collecting cases)); Faizyan v. Casey, 2025 WL 3208844, at *5 (S.D. Cal.
20 Nov. 17, 2025) (holding that § 1226 applies to a petitioner who “DHS has consistently treated” as
21 subject to discretionary detention and “who has been residing in the United States for two years”
22 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Josue I.C.A. v. Lyons, 2025 WL 3496432, at 3
23 n.6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2025) (collecting cases); Morales-Flores v. Lyons, 2025 WL 3552841, at
24 *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2025) (collecting cases) (“Courts nationwide, including this one, have
25 overwhelmingly rejected respondents’ arguments and found DHS’s new policy unlawful.”); J.S.
26

27 4 Until DHS changed its policy in July 2025, the Government consistently applied Section
1226(a), not Section 1225(b)(2), to noncitizens residing in the United States who were detained
28 by immigration authorities and subject to removal. See Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1196.
1 v. Wofford, 2026 WL 125258, at *1, *3-5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026), findings and
2 recommendations adopted, 2026 WL 297304 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2026) (finding § 1226(a)
3 applicable to immigration detainee who lived in the United States for approximately 33 years
4 before being detained by ICE).
5 “These courts examined the text, structure, agency application, and legislative history of
6 1225(b)(2) and concluded that it applies only to noncitizens ‘seeking admission,’ a category that
7 does not include noncitizens like [petitioner], living in the interior of the country.” Salcedo
8 Aceros v. Kaiser, 2025 WL 2637503, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025) (collecting cases). By
9 contrast, “[t]he government’s proposed reading of the statute (1) disregards the plain meaning of
10 section 1225(b)(2)(A); (2) disregards the relationship between sections 1225 and 1226; (3) would
11 render a recent amendment to section 1226(c) superfluous; and (4) is inconsistent with decades of
12 prior statutory interpretation and practice.” Guerro Lepe v. Andrews, 2025 WL 2716910, at *4
13 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2025) (collecting cases). This Court incorporates and adopts the thorough
14 and persuasive reasoning of the district court in Lepe, 2025 WL 2716910, at *3-9.
15 Further, respondents’ reliance on Buenrostro-Mendez, 2026 WL 323330, is unavailing. In
16 Buenrostro-Mendez, the Fifth Circuit recently agreed with respondents’ interpretation of
17 § 1225(b)(2). This Court agrees with the district court in Gurvinder Singh v. Chestnut, 2026 WL
18 413839 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2026):
19 Two courts of appeal have addressed whether 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens who have lived in the United
20 States for years without having been admitted. See Castañon-Nava
v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060-62 (7th Cir.
21 2025) (concluding that government was not likely to prevail on the
merits that petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under
22 § 1225(b)(2)(A)); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ---, Nos.
25-20496, 25-40701, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026)
23 (finding petitioners were subject to mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b)(2)(A)). Respondents cite to the Buenrostro-Mendez
24 decision. Doc. 9 at 1. The Court finds the analysis in Castañon-Nava
and in the dissent in Buenrostro-Mendez to be more persuasive on
25 the statutory interpretation issue. In any event, the Buenrostro-
Mendez decision did not address the due process claim at issue in the
26 present case.”
27 Gurvinder Singh, 2026 WL 413839, at *1 n.1. This Court does not find Buenrostro-Mendez to be
28 persuasive for the reasons provided above. See also Singh v. Baltazar, 2026 WL 352870, at *3-6
1 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2026) (rejecting the Buenrostro majority in its interpretation of § 1225 as
2 nonbinding and highlighting the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ disagreement with the
3 Buenrostro majority) (citing Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048,
4 1052 (7th Cir. 2025)); Tomas Nicolas v. Warden, 2026 WL 364399, at *3 n.3 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 10,
5 2026) (disagreeing with Buenrostro majority and declining to follow); Chachipanta Cando v.
6 Bondi, 2026 WL 357551, at *5 n.6 (D. Neb. Feb. 9, 2026) (same); Aroca v. Mason, 2026 WL
7 357872, at *15 n.40 (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 9, 2026) (same).
8 Following the majority of courts, this Court also rejects the government’s new
9 interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and their contention that petitioner is an “applicant for
10 admission” subject to § 1225(b)(2). This Court finds that petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C.
11 § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations because petitioner has resided in this country for
12 approximately 20 years and his arrest and detention in January 2026 was not upon his arrival to
13 the United States. “Federal regulations provide that [noncitizens] detained under § 1226(a)
14 receive bond hearings at the outset of detention.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 306 (citing 8 CFR
15 § 236.1(d)(1)). If, at this hearing, the detainee demonstrates that he or she is not “a threat to
16 national security, a danger to the community at large, likely to abscond, or otherwise a poor bail
17 risk,” the immigration judge will order his or her release. Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F. 4th at
18 1197 (citing Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (B.I.A. 2006)). As such, petitioner should
19 have been provided a bond hearing and he is entitled to relief on his statutory claim.
20 V. RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST TO STAY
21 Respondents’ alternative request that this matter be stayed pending a ruling by the Ninth
22 Circuit in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.) should be denied because a stay is not in
23 the interests of petitioner, who has been detained since January 8, 2026, and because a stay would
24 not promote the efficient use of scarce judicial resources in a district with some of the highest
25 caseloads in the country. A stay would put a further strain on limited judicial resources.
26 VI. REMEDY
27 As relief, petitioner requests immediate release from custody or, in the alternative, a bond
28 hearing before an immigration judge. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Considering § 1226(a)’s discretionary
1 detention framework, and the absence of any prior release on bond pursuant to § 1226(a), an
2 order directing respondents to provide a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy. See 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1226(a)(1) (authorizing the Attorney General to arrest and detain noncitizens pending removal
4 proceedings); Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1263 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (explaining
5 “the specific harm [petitioner] alleges—that he is unlawfully barred from receiving a bond
6 hearing on the merits—is remedied by granting his request for a bond hearing under Section
7 1226(a)[.]”); see also J.S., 2026 WL 125258, at *8 (ordering bond hearing where no prior release
8 on bond pursuant to § 1226(a)).
9 VII. CONCLUSION
10 In summary, the Court recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted.
11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
12 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED.
13 2. Respondents be ordered to provide petitioner Julio Cortes-Ontiveros with a bond
14 hearing within seven days of the adoption of these findings and recommendations
15 where respondents bear the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence
16 that petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight to justify his
17 continued detention.
18 3. The parties be directed to file, within seven days of the adoption of these findings and
19 recommendations, a joint status report addressing petitioner’s status.
20 4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and close
21 this case.
22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days of
24 the date of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the
25 court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
26 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be
27 filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that
28 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
1 |} Court’s order. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
2
3 | Dated: March 9, 2026
Cin □□□
CHI SOO KIM
5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7 | Ontil259.157(4).imm/2
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11376674. Public record. Not legal advice.