Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 Case No. 2:26-cv-00968-JLT-SKO

DAYZAN MANUEL BLANCO-

12 FIGUEROA (A-No. 240-059-632), ORDER WITHDRAWING THE REFERENCE

OF THIS MATTER TO THE MAGISTRATE

13 Petitioner, JUDGE; GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ORDERING

14 v. PETITIONER’S IMMEDIATE RELEASE

15 WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY (Doc. 1)

CORRECTION CENTER, et al.,

16

Respondents.

17

18 Dayzan Manuel Blanco-Figueroa is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a

19 pending habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) This matter was initially referred

20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. In

21 the interest of justice and to promote judicial and party efficiency, the undersigned hereby

22 withdraws that reference, and for the reasons set forth below, GRANTS the Petition.

23 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

24 Petitioner is an asylum seeker from Cuba who entered the United States on or about

25 February 25, 2022. (Doc. 1 at 4.) He subsequently filed an application for asylum which is

26 currently pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and obtained a valid

27 Employment Authorization and Social Security number (Id.) Petitioner was arrested by

28 Immigration and Customs Enforcement on May 21, 2025 and is currently being detained at

1 California City Detention Facility in California City, California. (Id.) On March 18, 2026,

2 Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that

3 his due process rights have been violated. (Doc. 1.) On April 8, 2026, Respondents filed a

4 response to the Petition on the grounds that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” under expedited

5 removal procedures set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. 6 at 1.)

6 II. LEGAL STANDARD

7 The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every

8 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)

9 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the

10 power to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or

11 laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens

12 in immigration-related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A.A. R.

13 P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025).

14 III. DISCUSSION

15 Petitioner claims that his ongoing detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing

16 before a neutral decisionmaker violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

17 Amendment.1 (Doc. 1 at 6.) To the extent that Respondents substantively address Petitioner’s due

18 process argument, they assert that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory

19 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) of the INA and therefore categorically ineligible for a

20 bond hearing. (Doc. 6 at 1-2.) Courts nationwide, including this one, have overwhelmingly

21 rejected Respondents’ new legal position and found the DHS policy unlawful. See e.g., Espinoza

22 v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); Ortiz

23 Donis v. Chestnut, 1:25-CV-01228-JLT, 2025 WL 2879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v.

24 Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Aguilera

25 v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025);

26 J.E.H.G. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01673-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3523108 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9,

27

1 Petitioner also claims his unlawful detention constitutes a violation of the Immigration and Nationality

28 Act. (Doc. 1 at 6.) Given that Petitioner’s due process claim serves as the basis for relief and Petitioner’s

1 | 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec.

2 | 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal.

3 | Jan. 20, 2026).

4 Respondents offer little to rebut Petitioner’s due process claim and do not provide any

5 | justification for detaining Petitioner. Therefore, for the reasons stated in this Court’s prior orders,

6 | the Court finds that Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due

7 | Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

8 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

9 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Petitioner SHALL

10 | be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY.

11 2. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner

12 | unless the government provides notice to Petitioner a minimum of seven days in advance and

13 | holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and applicable

14 | regulations, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered, and where the

15 || government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or

16 | danger to the community, such that physical custody is legally justified’;

17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the California City Detention Facility in

18 | California City, California with a copy of this Order.

19 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for Petitioner.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

29 | Dated: _April 16, 2026 Charis [Tourn

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23

24

25

26 | 2 If legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without notice in advance, a post-deprivation hearing

17 consistent with the requirements set forth here SHALL be provided within seven days of the arrest.

Alternatively, if Petitioner becomes subject to a final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of

28 such order, Respondents may detain Petitioner for the sole and limited purpose of executing removal. In

this event, Respondent’s SHALL provide a bond hearing in the timeframe required by law.