He v. Field Office Director et al

1
26cv0680 DMS VET
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
DAKUN HE,
Petitioner,
v.
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR,
Enforcement and Removal Operations,
San Diego Field Office, 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; ACTING
WARDEN, IMPERIAL REGIONAL
DETENTION FACILITY,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv0680 DMS VET
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Respondents filed a Return to the Petition, and Petitioner filed Traverse. After considering
the parties’ briefs, the relevant legal authority and the record, the Court grants the Petition.
Case 3:26-cv-00680-DMS-VET Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
26cv0680 DMS VET
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
Petitioner Dakun He is a citizen of China who entered the United States without
inspection on June 4, 2019. (Return, Ex. 2.) Petitioner was initially detained and later
released on parole after posting a $30,000 bond. (Pet. at 1.)
On May 30, 2025, Petitioner was arrested and re-detained as part of a raid of a
business in the City of Industry. (Return, Ex. 1.) He is currently detained at Imperial
Regional Detention Facility (“IRDF”). Since being at IRDF, it appears Petitioner has had
two bond hearings, at which his requests for release on bond were denied. According to
Petitioner, the immigration judge denied Petitioner’s first request for bond on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I & N Dec. 216 (BIA
2025).1 (Pet. at 3-4.) Petitioner’s second request for bond was denied because the
immigration judge found Petitioner was not a member of the certified class in Maldonado
Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, United States District Court for
the Central District of California.
On February 3, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case seeking either release from
custody or a third bond hearing, among other things. Petitioner raises two claims. First,
he argues Respondents’ invocation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225 to support his detention violates the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Second, Petitioner asserts his detention without
a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Respondents
acknowledge the decisions of this Court support Petitioner’s argument on the § 1225/1226
issue, but stand by their argument that Petitioner is properly detained under § 1225.
This Court has addressed the § 1225/1226 issue in several previous decisions, and
found noncitizens like Petitioner here are appropriately detained under § 1226(a) as
opposed to § 1225(b)(2)(A). See, e.g., Garcia v. Noem, 803 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1075-77
1 In Yajure-Hurtado, the Board of Immigration Appeals reasoned that any individual who entered the
United States without admission is an “applicant for admission” (meaning, an “alien present in the United
States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port
of arrival . . .)”), and must, therefore, be detained during removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2).
Case 3:26-cv-00680-DMS-VET Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
26cv0680 DMS VET
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
(S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding petitioners had shown a likelihood of success on claim they were
detained under § 1226(a) as opposed to § 1225(b)(2)(A)). In a recent decision, the Seventh
Circuit also came to the same conclusion. Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland
Security, 161 F.4th 1048, 1061 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding on a preliminary record “that
Defendants are not likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that those individuals,
whom ICE arrested in Chicago without a warrant, are subject to mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b)(2)(A).”) Several district courts across the country have now followed the
reasoning of Castañon-Nava, and also come to the same conclusion. See, e.g., Mejia Diaz
v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-960-CCB-SJF, 2025 WL 3640419 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2025) (citing
Castañon-Nava to support conclusion that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to noncitizens who
are apprehended in the interior of the United States years after their unlawful entry); Colin
v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1189-D, 2025 WL 3645176 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025 (same);
Goorakani v. Lyons, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, Nos. 25 Civ. 9456 (DEH), 25 Civ. 9551 (DEH),
25 Civ. 9592 (DEH), 25 Civ. 9952 (DEH), 2025 WL 3632896, at *8-12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
15, 2025) (concluding, based in part on Castañon-Nava, that “[m]andatory detention under
Section 1225(b) applies only to those applicants for admission who are seeking
admission—i.e., ‘arriving aliens,’ or those who are entering (or attempting to enter) the
country, and not to those who are already present or reside here.”); Simon v. Olson, ___
F.Supp.3d ___, No. 25 C 14799, 2025 WL 3567469, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2025)
(concluding § 1226(a) applied to noncitizen who (1) had been present in the United States
for 23 years, (2) had five U.S. citizen children, (3) had no criminal record, and (4) was
detained in the Midwest); Acosta de Perez v. Frank, No. H-25-5357, 2025 WL 3626347,
at *2-5 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2025) (citing Castañon-Nava in concluding petitioner’s
detention was governed by § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)). But see Buenrostro-Mendez
v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026) (finding § 1225 applies to noncitizens regardless of
“where or how the alien entered the United States.”)
Based on this Court’s reasoning in Garcia, and the reasoning of Castañon-Nava, the
Court concludes Petitioner’s detention in this case is likewise governed by § 1226(a) as
Case 3:26-cv-00680-DMS-VET Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
26cv0680 DMS VET
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
opposed to § 1225(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, the Petition is granted. Respondents are
directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before the Immigration
Court within seven (7) days of the entry of this Order. Respondents shall not deny
Petitioner bond on the basis that § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. Further, the
parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report within fourteen (14) days of this
Order’s entry, confirming Petitioner has received a bond hearing and the outcome of that
hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00680-DMS-VET Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4