Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
E.L.D.C. 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 4:25-cv-381-CDL-AGH
: 	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Warden, STEWART DETENTION 	:
CENTER, et al., 	:
:
Respondents. 	:
_________________________________
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus
(ECF Nos. 1, 14). 	Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador who has resided in
the United States for approximately thirty years after entering without inspection.
Amend. Pet. ¶ 25, ECF No. 4; Notice to Appear 1, ECF No. 4-6; Stephens Decl. ¶ 3, ECF
No. 6-1. 	On October 3, 2025, he was taken into United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) custody and has been detained since then. 	Stephens Decl. ¶ 4.
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a discretionary bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a). Respondents argue that Petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing because he
is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which mandates detention for certain aliens,
without an opportunity for a bond hearing.
As Respondents concede, though, the issue presented in this action is identical to
the issue the Court decided in J.A.M. v. Streeval, No. 4:25-cv-342-CDL, 2025 WL
3050094 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2025) and P.R.S. v. Streeval, No. 4:25-cv-343-CDL, 2025 WL
3269947 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2025). Based on the Court’s rationale in J.A.M. and P.R.S.,
Case 4:25-cv-00381-CDL-AGH Document 7 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 2

the Court finds that Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Court
thus grants Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the extent that the Court
orders Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing to determine if Petitioner
may be released on bond under § 1226(a)(2) and the applicable regulations.1 See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 236.1 & 1236.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 1st day of December, 2025.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
1 Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus compelling United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services to adjudicate Petitioner’s pending I-360 self-petition. Amend. Pet. ¶¶ 143-158. As Respondents
correctly argue, claims for administrative relief are not cognizable in a habeas action. See Pierre v. United
States, 525 F.2d 933, 935–36 (5th Cir. 1976) (“[H]abeas is not available to review questions unrelated to
the cause of detention. Its sole function is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody and it
cannot be used properly for any other purpose. While it is correctly alluded to as the Great Writ, it cannot
be utilized as a base for the review of a refusal to grant collateral administrative relief or as a springboard
to adjudicate matters foreign to the question of the legality of custody.”). Therefore, Petitioner’s claim for
writ of mandamus is DENIED without prejudice.
Case 4:25-cv-00381-CDL-AGH Document 7 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 2