Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MAURO AUGUSTIN RODRIGUEZ- Case No. 1:26-cv-02432-JLT-EPG-HC

FERRUFINO,

12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

Petitioner, GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF

13 HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECT

v. RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY

14 RELEASE PETITIONER

WARDEN OF GOLDEN STATE ANNEX

15 DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,

16 Respondents.

17

18 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends

20 granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordering Petitioner’s immediate release.

21 I.

22 BACKGROUND

23 Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States at or near Hidalgo, Texas, on or

24 about February 3, 2016 and was detained. On February 4, 2016, Petitioner was served with

25 Forms 1-200, I-862, and I-286 and “processed . . . as a Notice to Appear (NTA) at McAllen,

26 Texas.” (ECF No. 1 at 2, 21–22; ECF No. 8-1 at 5.1) On February 5, 2016, Petitioner was

27

1 released on recognizance. Petitioner initially had an ankle monitor, but the ankle monitor was

2 removed after a few months. (ECF No. 1 at 2–3, 24, 26.) After his release, Petitioner resided

3 with his brother-in-law in Huntington Park, California for ten years, timely applied for asylum,

4 and obtained work authorization, a Social Security number, and a driver’s license. Petitioner was

5 employed at a construction company for the past seven years, paid taxes, and appeared at court

6 hearings. Petitioner has no criminal history. (ECF No. 1 at 3.)

7 On October 30, 2023, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed. On November

8 27, 2023, Petitioner filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). That appeal

9 is still pending. (ECF No. 8-1 at 5.)

10 On January 25, 2026, immigration officials detained Petitioner. According to the Form I-

11 213,2 a Border Patrol agent witnessed Petitioner “attempting to use a tool to jimmy the driver’s

12 side door of a grey SUV.” (ECF No. 8-1 at 3.) The Form I-213 states that the agent approached

13 Petitioner, asking what Petitioner was doing and what country Petitioner was from, and

14 Petitioner attempted to walk away. The Border Patrol agent informed Petitioner “that he was

15 under arrest at which point he instantly began to fight and resist arrest.” (Id.) Two agents

16 wrestled Petitioner to the ground and Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray was deployed. Petitioner

17 was able to grab the OC spray but did not deploy it. (Id. at 3–4.) According to the petition,

18 Petitioner was “near his own vehicle,”3 “which had [a] problem with the door lock, and he was

19 attempting to open it” when another “vehicle stopped near his car and 2 masked individuals r[a]n

20 away from that vehicle toward” Petitioner who was “shocked . . . and instinctively stepped

21 back.” (ECF No. 1 at 3, 16.) The petition alleges that the officers never identified themselves as

22 Border Patrol agents, did not inform Petitioner that he was under arrest, and started to attack

23 Petitioner. (Id. at 17.)

24 \\\

25

2 “A Form I-213 is ‘a recorded recollection of a[n INS agent’s] conversation with the alien’ which ‘border

26 agents routinely complete after interviewing aliens.’” Smith v. Garland, 103 F.4th 663, 665 (9th Cir.

2024) (alteration in original) (quoting Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1995)).

27 3 The petition cites to Exhibit D, entitled “Petitioner’s own vehicle’s Title ‘Nissan Extera,’” which

appears to be a photocopy of a State of California form, but the Court is unable to discern whether it is a

1 On March 30, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus4 and a motion for

2 temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The district judge denied the motion for

3 TRO as untimely. (ECF No. 5.) On April 21, 2026, Respondents filed a response. (ECF No. 8.)

4 On April 24, 2026, Petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 10.)

5 II.

6 DISCUSSION

7 A. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)

8 Respondents assert that “Petitioner is presently detained under 8 U.S.C.

9 § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II), as an alien amenable to expedited removal, but who was placed into full

10 § 1229a removal proceedings in the exercise of discretion of the U.S. Department of Homeland

11 Security (“DHS”) after being intercepted within two years of entry without inspection.” (ECF

12 No. 8 at 1–2.) This Court has previously rejected a similar argument:

13 Additionally, petitioner is not now subject to expedited removal,

because she was paroled into the United States in 2022. Section

14 1225(b)(1), the expedited removal provision, applies to “an alien ...

who is arriving in the United States or ... [a]n alien ... who has not

15 been admitted or paroled into the United States, and who has not

affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer,

16 that the alien has been physically present in the United States

continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of

17 the determination of inadmissibility ....” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), (iii)(II).

18

As someone who has been physically present in the United States

19 for over two years, petitioner is not “an alien ... who is arriving in

the United States.” See Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999, 1012

20 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that a “person standing at the border is

... [at] the penultimate stage in the process of arriving in the United

21 States” within the meaning of section 1225). And because

petitioner was paroled pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), she is

22 not an “alien ... who has not been admitted or paroled ....” Id. The

Court agrees with other courts which have found that a noncitizen

23 who has been paroled into the United States cannot later be subject

to expedited removal, even if their parole has expired or been

24 terminated. See Coal. for Humane Immigrant Rts. v. Noem, No. 25-

CV-872 (JMC), 2025 WL 2192986, at *21–27 (D.D.C. Aug. 1,

25 2025); N.Y.V.D. v. Santracruz, No. 5:25-CV-03404-WLH-SP,

26

4 Although the petition is not signed, the Court will disregard this defect. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

27 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The district court may refuse to file, or may dismiss, an unsigned and

unverified petition. However, the defect is one that the district court may, if it sees fit, disregard.”

1 2025 WL 3786964, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025); Aviles-Mena

v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06783-RFL, 2025 WL 2578215, at *4–5

2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025).

3 Robles-Rodriguez v. Lyons, No. 1:25-cv-02001-KES-SAB (HC), 2026 WL 303482, at *3–4

4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2026).

5 Similarly, here, Petitioner was released on recognizance in February 2016, has been

6 physically present in the United States for over two years, and thus, cannot later be subject to

7 expedited removal. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends finding that Petitioner is not

8 subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A). See Castellon v. Kaiser, No.

9 1:25-cv-00968 JLT EPG, 2025 WL 2373425, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) (“Coalition

10 concluded that the statute [8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II)] ‘forbids the expedited removal of

11 noncitizens who have been, at any point in time, paroled into the United States.’” (alteration

12 added) (quoting Coal. for Humane Immigrant Rts. v. Noem, 805 F. Supp. 3d 48, 83 (D.D.C.

13 2025))); Garcia v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-01006 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 2420068, at *5 (E.D. Cal.

14 Aug. 21, 2025) (“This section [8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(1)(ii)] specifically precludes expedited

15 removal as to any alien placed on parole.”).

16 B. Procedural Due Process

17 Petitioner challenges his detention on procedural due process grounds. (ECF No. 1 at 9.)

18 “[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,

19 whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis,

20 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention,

21 or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.”

22 Zadvydas at 690. Relying on Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), courts in this district

23 have consistently held that noncitizens who have been released from immigration custody

24 pending civil removal proceedings have a protected liberty interest in remaining out of

25 immigration custody. See, e.g., Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1093 (E.D. Cal. 2025);

26 J.A.E.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01380-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3013377, at *3–6 (E.D.

27 Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); J.C.L.A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01310-KES-EPG (HC), 2025 WL

2959250, at *3–5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025); Qazi v. Albarran, No. 2:25-cv-02791-TLN-CSK,

1 2025 WL 3033713, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025); Martinez Hernandez v. Andrews, No. 1:25-

2 cv-01035 JLT HBK, 2025 WL 2495767, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025); Yang v. Kaiser, No.

3 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); Maklad v.

4 Murray, No. 1:25-cv-00946 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 2299376, at *7–8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2025).

5 “Respondents recognize that the majority of judges in the Eastern District of California

6 have accepted Petitioner’s arguments.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) Respondents’ arguments have been

7 rejected by this Court in other proceedings, and Respondents have not distinguished this matter

8 from the Court’s prior decisions that have granted habeas relief for similar claims. Accordingly,

9 the undersigned recommends granting the petition for the reasons stated in Castellon v. Kaiser,

10 No. 1:25-cv-00968 JLT EPG, 2025 WL 2373425 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025), and Garcia v.

11 Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-01006 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 2420068 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025).

12 C. Appropriate Relief

13 Courts in this district have taken differing approaches to the relief granted to petitioners

14 who have been released, subsequently re-detained, and denied bond hearings in violation of due

15 process. In some cases, the immediate release of the petitioner has been ordered. See, e.g.,

16 Yurani Hortua v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01670-TLN-JDP, 2025 WL 3525916 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9,

17 2025) (ordering immediate release of petitioner who had been released from immigration

18 detention on parole, was arrested for theft but the case was resolved with community service and

19 did not result in a conviction, and was re-detained at a routine six-month check-in); Carmen G.C.

20 v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-01648-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3521304 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025)

21 (ordering immediate release of petitioner who allegedly violated reporting requirements four

22 times); Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D.

23 Cal. Dec. 9, 2025) (ordering immediate release of petitioner who allegedly “incurred compliance

24 violations” that were not identified and where respondents did not suggest the alleged violations

25 were the reason for petitioner’s re-detention).

26 In other cases, bond hearings have been ordered rather than immediate release. See, e.g.,

27 J.E.H.G. v. Chesnut, No. 1:25-cv-01673-JLT SKO, 2025 WL 3523108 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025)

1 times and was re-detained based on said violations); Paz Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-

2 01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) (ordering bond hearing for

3 petitioner who allegedly violated reporting requirements one time and was re-detained based on

4 said violation); Sharan S. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01427-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3167826

5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025) (ordering bond hearing for petitioner who allegedly violated reporting

6 requirements eight times).

7 Here, Respondents do not allege, and there is nothing in the record before this Court, that

8 Petitioner violated his conditions of release. Although Respondents note “Petitioner was arrested

9 and detained after a U.S. Border Patrol agent saw Petitioner attempting to break into a vehicle”

10 and “Petitioner became combative and tried to resist arrest,” (ECF No. 8 at 2), Petitioner

11 explained that he was attempting to open the door of his own vehicle, which has a faulty lock,

12 and described his perspective of his encounter with the agents, (ECF No. 1 at 16–17). Given that

13 Petitioner complied with his release conditions for ten years and has no criminal history, the

14 undersigned recommends finding that immediate release is appropriate. See Pinchi v. Noem, 792

15 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1037–38 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (“The only potential injury the government faces is

16 a short delay in detaining [Petitioner] if it ultimately demonstrates to a neutral decisionmaker by

17 clear and convincing evidence that [his] detention is necessary to prevent danger to the

18 community or flight.”).

19 D. Respondents’ Request for Abeyance

20 Respondents request that “[i]n the alternative, the Court should hold the matter in

21 abeyance pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of” Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842

22 (9th Cir.). (ECF No. 8 at 3.) Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 802 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (W.D. Wash.

23 2025), concerned the “practice by the Tacoma Immigration Court of interpreting the Immigration

24 and Nationality Act (‘INA’) to require detention without the possibility of bond for noncitizens

25 who entered the United States without inspection, even if they have lived here for years and can

26 prove they present neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.” Id. at 1303 (footnote

27 omitted). The district court granted summary judgment “to the Bond Denial Class5 on their

1 claims that their detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful” and declared “that Bond

2 Denial Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory

3 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)” and that “the Tacoma Immigration Court’s practice of

4 denying bond to Bond Denial Class members on the basis of § 1225(b)(2) violates the

5 Immigration and Nationality Act.” Rodriguez Vazquez, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 1336.

6 The Court is doubtful the Ninth Circuit decision in Rodriguez Vazquez will impact the

7 conclusion that Petitioner has a protected liberty interest that arises from his prior release from

8 immigration custody. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends denying Respondents’ request

9 to hold the matter in abeyance pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Rodriguez Vazquez.

10 III.

11 RECOMMENDATION

12 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

13 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED.

14 2. Respondents be directed to immediately release Petitioner from custody with the same

15 conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention on January 25, 2026.

16 3. Respondents be enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Petitioner unless they

17 demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a

18 neutral decisionmaker, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that

19 his physical custody is legally justified.

20 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

21 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

22 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

23 FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file

24 written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and

25

[A]ll noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE

26 Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States

without inspection, (2) are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or

27 will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1),

or § 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond

hearing.

1 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

2 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed

3 | within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned United States District

4 | Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

5 | The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the

6 | right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

7 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

8

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10} Dated: _ May 14, 2026 [see hey

11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28