Ramos Ixcotoyac v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

1
26-cv-0482-AGS-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Wilmar Eduardo RAMOS IXCOTOYAC,
Petitioner,
v.
John DOE, WARDEN, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0482-AGS-DDL
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Unrepresented petitioner Wilmar Ramos Ixcotoyac seeks a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. (See ECF 1.) At this stage,
he need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4
(authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application
of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context,
the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not
cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But
“as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify
summary dismissal[.]” Id.
Ramos Ixcotoyac’s petition is thin on details. He claims that he is “detained by
[Immigration and Customs Enforcement],” that he “has been held without a meaningful
bond hearing,” and that his continued detention “violates the Due Process Clause.” (ECF 3,
at 1 (emphasis added).) These allegations are missing some important details: the date his
detention began, the circumstances surrounding his detention, and the purported basis for
his custody. But his allegation that he hasn’t had a “meaningful” bond hearing at least
suggests that he was afforded a bond hearing only for the immigration judge to find it is
without jurisdiction on account of Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025),
as immigration judges have often found since that case issued.
Case 3:26-cv-00482-AGS-DDL Document 4 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0482-AGS-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Construing the petition in the light most favorable to this unrepresented petitioner,
this challenge is not so “frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal” and thus
merits a response. See Neiss, 114 F.4th at 1045. The two Courts of Appeals to address the
logic underpinning Yajure Hurtado disagreed about how to interpret the issue. Compare
Castañon-Nava v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060, 1062
(7th Cir. 2025) (concluding “on this preliminary [motion-to-stay] record” that plaintiffs
who are “unlawfully already in the United States” are not “subject to mandatory detention
under § 1225(b)(2)(A)”), with Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, __ F.4th ___,
2026 WL 323330, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding that, under § 1225(b)(2)(A),
petitioners who entered the United States “illegally many years ago” must “be detained”
without a bond hearing). But most petitioners have nonetheless obtained habeas relief in
functionally identical cases. See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, ___ F. Supp. 3d. ___,
No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that,
in “350” of the “362” opinions to address this issue, the petitioners “prevailed, either on a
preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 160 different judges
sitting in about fifty different courts”). And a district court recently “vacate[d]” Yajure
Hurtado—the Board of Immigration Appeals decision that respondents have regularly
relied on to mandatorily detain those in petitioner’s position. See Bautista v. Santacruz,
No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2026 WL 468284, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
18, 2026).
So, by February 26, 2026, the government must answer the petition. Any reply by
petitioner is due March 6, 2026.
Dated: February 19, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00482-AGS-DDL Document 4 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2