Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

JONATHAN JOSUE LUCARIO

ISIDRO,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1163-MMH-SJH

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION

AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et

al.,

Respondents.

___________________________________

ORDER

Petitioner Jonathan Josue Lucario Isidro, an immigration detainee, is

proceeding through counsel on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1;

Petition), filed May 6, 2026. See generally Petition. Isidro is a citizen of Mexico

who entered the United States without inspection in August 2003. Id. at 4. On

April 24, 2026, he was arrested for driving without a valid driver’s license. Id.

Although the case is still pending, Isidro posted bond and was transferred into

custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Id.

Isidro raises various challenges to his immigration detention and seeks, inter

alia, either immediate release or an individualized bond hearing. See id. at 9–

12.

Respondent Warden filed Respondent Warden, Florida Baker

Correctional Institution’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (Doc. 5; Motion), arguing he is not a proper respondent in this case. See

generally Motion. The Federal Respondents filed Federal Respondents’

Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6; Response) asserting

that they are now detaining Isidro under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and conceding

that to the extent he seeks an individualized bond hearing, the Court should

grant the Petition based on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent

decision in Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center Miami,

175 F.4th 1258 (11th Cir. 2026) (concluding that Ҥ 1225 applies to arriving

aliens seeking entry at the border, whereas § 1226 applies to aliens unlawfully

in the interior”). Response at 1, 3. They also contend that this case is not ripe

for review because Isidro failed to seek a bond hearing in an immigration court

before initiating this action. Id. at 4. Isidro filed Petitioner’s Reply in Support

of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 7; Reply). See generally Reply. He

asks the Court to direct his immediate release from custody. Id. at 2.

When Isidro was detained in April 2026, Petition at 4, he was not seeking

entry at the border; therefore, as the Federal Respondents now concede, he is

not subject to § 1225 and instead is detained under § 1226, see id. at 1285

(recognizing the “longstanding border-interior distinction” for purposes of

immigration detention that Congress preserved in the Immigration and

Nationality Act).1 Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Isidro’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED

as to his claim that his detention without an individualized bond hearing

violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.2 Within seven days of this

Order, Respondents shall either afford Isidro an individualized bond hearing

consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or release him. If Respondents release

1 Insofar as the Federal Respondents argue that Isidro failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies prior to filing this case, the Court rejects that argument. See

Response at 4. At the time Isidro 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 noncitizens like Isidro. See In re Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216,

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

to pursue 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 conclusion under Matter of

Yajure Hurtado, any prudential exhaustion requirements are excused for futility.”).

2 Because the Court finds that Isidro is entitled to relief on his assertion that

Respondents violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Court need not

address his remaining contentions. 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”).

Isidro, they shall facilitate his transportation from the detention facility by

notifying his counsel when and where he can be collected.

2. Respondent Warden’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is DENIED. See,

e.g., Fonseca v. Ripa, No. 3:26-CV-309-MMH-MCR, 2026 WL 1072778, *4—5

(M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2026).

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions, enter

judgment granting the Petition, and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 10th day of July,

2026.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge

1c36

C:

Counsel of Record