Anibal A. Velasquez Hernandez v. Warden, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 16, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-04449
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 ANIBAL A. VELASQUEZ HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-04449-KES-SAB-HC

11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 v. HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY 13 WARDEN, et al., RELEASE PETITIONER

14 Respondents.

15 16 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner is a noncitizen who has lived in the United States since 2008 and is married 21 and is the father of two U.S. citizen children. Petitioner owns property, has filed taxes, and has 22 worked consistently. Petitioner alleges he has no criminal history. Petitioner has been detained 23 since February 20, 2026, and an immigration judge (“IJ”) denied custody redetermination due to 24 lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 1–2.1) On May 7, 2026, an IJ denied cancellation of removal 25 and ordered Petitioner removed to Honduras. Petitioner is pursuing appellate review before the 26 Board of Immigration Appeals. (Id. at 4.) 27 1 On June 1, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States 2 District Court for the Central District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On June 10, 2026, the petition 3 was transferred to this Court. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) On June 15, 2026, Respondents filed a response to 4 the petition. (ECF No. 11.) 5 II. 6 DISCUSSION 7 The Court finds that issuance of findings and recommendation is appropriate despite the 8 time for Petitioner to file a reply to Respondents’ response having not yet expired. 9 Respondents argue that Petitioner is “an ‘applicant for admission’ who is subject to 10 mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).” (ECF No. 11 at 1.) Such arguments 11 have been rejected by this Court in numerous previous decisions. See, e.g., Crispin M.C. v. 12 Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); 13 J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025). 15 Respondents acknowledge that this “case is in the category of cases for which the Court 16 has typically ordered immediate release. This case is not substantively distinguishable from the 17 cases listed in the Court’s minute order.” (ECF No. 11 at 1.) As Respondents have not made any 18 new legal arguments and have not identified any factual or legal issues in this case that would 19 distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions set forth above, the Court recommends finding that 20 Petitioner is entitled to immediate release. See J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8. 21 III. 22 RECOMMENDATION 23 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 24 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED. 25 2. Respondents be directed to immediately release Petitioner. 26 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 27 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 1 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 2 | written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any 3 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 4 | Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days 5 | after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate 6 | Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 7 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 8 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 9 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. tf (Sc 12 | Dated: _ June 16, 2026 OF STANLEY A. BOONE 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28