The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEAN CARLOS, Case No. 1:26-cv-04866 (VC)
Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
v. CORPUS
WARDEN OF THE MESA VERDE Re: Dkt. No. 1
DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
Based on the Government’s new interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) as mandating
detention for all noncitizens present in the United States without admission, Petitioner Jean
Carlos is being detained without the opportunity for a bond hearing. This matter is before the
Court on Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus seeking “release within 30 days unless Respondents
schedule a hearing before an immigration judge” where the Government must justify its
continued detention of Petitioner or release him. Dkt. No. 1 at 18; see Dkt. No. 10 at 9–10. For
the reasons that follow, the Court grants the petition and orders Respondents to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing.
The instant petition raises claims that are functionally identical to those this Court, and
many others within this district, have already addressed in prior orders. Petitioner entered the
United States on or around March 2, 2018 on a B1 Temporary Visitor visa with an expiration of
September 6, 2018, but remained in the United States past that expiration. Dkt. No. 9-1 at 2. On
December 26, 2026, Petitioner was detained by ICE when he was released from St. Lucie County
Jail following an arrest for providing law enforcement with a false ID. Id.; Dkt. No. 9-2 at 5.
Petitioner was ordered removed on July 27, 2026, but has until August 26, 2026 to appeal that
order. Dkt. No. 10 at 5-6. As such, there is no final order of removal in place. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(47)(B) (an order of removal becomes “final upon the earlier of (1) a determination by
the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such order; or (11) the expiration of the period which
the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals’).
The Ninth Circuit’s holding in Rodriguez Vazquez, v. Bostock finding that “aliens present
without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the
detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A)” is dispositive here. 2026 WL 2196424, at *3
(9th Cir. July 30, 2026). As a noncitizen without admission arrested in the interior of the United
States, Petitioner is subject to the discretionary detention scheme in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Indeed,
Respondents admit as much, conceding in opposition that “[t]his case is in the category of
immigration habeas cases for which the Court has typically ordered a bond hearing to determine
Petitioner’s suitability for release from detention pending a final order of removal.” Dkt. No. 9 at
1. As such, Petitioner’s detention, bond, and release are controlled by § 1226(a).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. No. 1, is GRANTED.
Within fourteen (14) days of this order Respondents are directed to arrange a bond hearing for
Petitioner before a neutral immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its
implementing regulations at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. Petitioner
shall be allowed to have counsel present, and the bond hearing may be rescheduled to a later date
on Petitioner’s request. Respondents are ordered to file a status report, within five days of the
bond hearing, confirming that the hearing occurred and attaching or describing the immigration
judge’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 18, 2026
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge