Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB
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
Jose Luis Alberto Panohaya Mediana,
Petitioner,
v.
Patrick, DIVVER, Field Office Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations,
San Diego Field Office, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Todd M. LYONS,
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Kristi NOEM,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; Pamela
BONDI, U.S. Attorney General;
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRATION REVIEW; Christopher
J. LAROSE, Warden of Otay Mesa
Detention Facility;
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB
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. ECF
No. 1. 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
Case 3:26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB
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
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days. The Court vacates the hearing scheduled for
April 3, 2026.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection
twenty-three years ago. ECF No. 1, ¶ 7. On November 2, 2025, ICE detained Petitioner
and placed him in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Id. ¶ 8. Petitioner was
not provided with a bond hearing upon his detention. Id. ¶ 21.
Petitioner alleges that his detention without a bond hearing violates the Immigration
and Nationality Act. Id. ¶¶ 28-33. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his detention is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)(2), thereby entitling him to a bond
hearing. Id.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner requests an order requiring his release, or any other relief this Court deems
proper. Id. at 7. Respondents do not oppose an Order granting 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).
The Court acknowledges that Petitioner’s time to file a traverse has not yet passed.
However, upon review of the Petition and Response, the Court finds that additional
argument is not necessary to inform its decision.
I. Standard of Proof
While Respondents “do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing
to be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a),” they go on to specify that, at such hearing,
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they are
not a danger to the community or a flight risk.” ECF No. 4. This overstates Petitioner’s
burden. The Ninth Circuit has described the bond hearing requirements of § 1226(a) as
follows:
Case 3:26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB
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
Under § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, a detainee
may request a bond hearing before an IJ at any time before a
removal order becomes final. If at this hearing the detainee
demonstrates by the preponderance of the evidence that he is not
a threat to national security, a danger to the community at large,
likely to abscond, or otherwise a poor bail risk, the IJ will order
his release.
Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Accordingly, a bond hearing ordered in compliance with § 1226(a) requires only that
Petitioner demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a flight risk or
danger to the community.
II. Remedy
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. 1
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1 In his prayer for relief, Petitioner requests an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s
fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. ECF No. 1, at 7. That request is DENIED
without prejudice. Petitioner’s counsel may submit an appropriate EAJA fee application
within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.
Case 3:26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB
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 are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of this Order.2 At the hearing,
Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating by the preponderance of the
evidence that he is not a danger to the community or flight risk;
• 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;
• The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner's favor and close this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2026
2 Respondents request 14 days to provide such a hearing. ECF No. 4, at 1 n.1. However,
Petitioner is presently wrongfully detained without a bond hearing. The seriousness and
urgency of this violation demands prompt resolution.
Case 3:26-cv-01760-GPC-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4