Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-CV-1739-GPC-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
DOLORES GARCIA-FRAGA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-CV-1739-GPC-DDL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
[ECF No. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition and ORDERS that
Respondents provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a) within seven (7) days.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen and national of Mexico who entered the United States without
inspection in 1999. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”) ¶ 25. On March 12, 2026, Respondents detained
Petitioner at Otay Mesa Detention Center, where she currently remains. Id. ¶ 17.
Petitioner alleges that her detention without a bond hearing violates her Fifth
Amendment due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Id. ¶¶
Case 3:26-cv-01739-GPC-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-CV-1739-GPC-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
23-34. Specifically, Petitioner argues that her detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
rather than § 1225(b)(2). Id. ¶¶ 23-29.
Petitioner requests an order requiring her release or any other relief this Court deems
proper. Id. at 9-10. Respondents have filed a notice of non-opposition as to a bond hearing
for Petitioner. ECF No. 4. Thus, Respondents have “effectively concede[ed]” that
Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2) and has been unlawfully
denied a bond hearing. See Vardanyan v. Noem, No. 5:26-CV-00423-MRA-RAO, 2026
WL 383341, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2026).
DISCUSSION
Given Petitioner’s allegations, a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy in this case.
Section 1226 requires only consideration of release on bond, and a bond hearing is
therefore sufficient to correct the unopposed violations outlined in the Petition. See 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a); Garcia v. Noem, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding
a bond hearing, rather than release, to be the appropriate remedy where Petitioner was
wrongfully subjected to mandatory detention without a hearing under 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2) rather than provided a bond hearing under § 1226(a)); Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose,
--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 2998361, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025) (same). If
Respondents fail to comply with this order, Petitioner may seek further relief from the
Court at that time.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
• 	Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of this Order;
• 	Respondents are ORDERED to FILE a Notice of Compliance within seven
(7) days of the hearing confirming that Petitioner was provided with a bond
hearing and stating whether Petitioner was released on bond;
• 	Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention;
Case 3:26-cv-01739-GPC-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-CV-1739-GPC-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
• 	Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner from this district pending his
bond hearing;
• 	The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner's favor and close this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01739-GPC-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3