Galan Barrios v. Bondi et al

1
26-cv-0751-AGS-DEB
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
Eduardo GALAN BARRIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0751-AGS-DEB
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Eduardo Galan Barrios seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 challenging his immigration detention. 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.
In 2009, Galan Barrios, a “Mexican national,” entered the United States. (ECF 1,
at 2.) Years later, on “January 19, 2026,” he was “stopped via a traffic stop by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement” and is now “detained” in ICE custody. (Id.) Galan Barrios is
now challenging the government’s decision to subject him to mandatory detention under
“[8 U.S.C.] § 1225(b)(2),” which applies to applicants for admission. (Id. at 10.) He asserts
that his case is instead governed by “8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)”—which authorizes release on
bond or conditional parole—because he is not an applicant for admission. (Id. at 3–4.) This
statutory misclassification, he argues, renders his detention “unlawful.” (Id.)
This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Functionally
identical cases across the country have succeeded, including a class action dealing with
Case 3:26-cv-00751-AGS-DEB Document 2 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0751-AGS-DEB
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
this very question. See Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM,
2025 WL 3678485, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (class action final judgment); 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”);
Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
Sept. 8, 2025) (“[P]etitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because
section 1226(a), not section 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v.
Feeley, No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025)
(same); Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1
(W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“[T]he government’s position belies the statutory text of the
INA, canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency
practice.”).
Recently, respondents have routinely conceded these claims when brought by those
who are in petitioner’s position. So, by Thursday, February 12, 2026, the government is
ordered to file a brief stating whether it: (1) agrees petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 and (2) intends to concede petitioner’s right to a bond hearing under that authority.
If respondents do not concede, they must answer the petition by February 16, 2026.
Dated: February 10, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00751-AGS-DEB Document 2 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2