7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 DANIEL TELLEZ FUGA, Case No. 2:26-cv-00654-JLT-SAB-HC
11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO 12 v. DISMISS, GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECT 13 WARDEN, et al., RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH A BOND HEARING 14 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 1, 6) 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 citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection at an 21 unknown date and location. On July 13, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by local law enforcement 22 for an offense involving possession of a controlled substance. (ECF No. 6-1 at 2.1) The 23 prosecutor rejected the charge without a pre-trial diversion, and on August 23, 2025, Petitioner 24 was transferred to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. (Id. at 3.) 25 On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for 26 temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The Court denied the motion for TRO as 27 untimely. (ECF No. 4.) On April 1, 2026, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 6.) 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The Court finds that issuance of findings and recommendation is appropriate despite the 4 time for Petitioner to file a reply to Respondents’ response having not yet expired. 5 A. Statutory Framework 6 An intricate statutory scheme governs the detention of noncitizens during removal 7 proceedings and after a final removal order is issued. “Where an alien falls within this statutory 8 scheme can affect whether his detention is mandatory or discretionary, as well as the kind of 9 review process available to him if he wishes to contest the necessity of his detention.” Prieto- 10 Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). 11 “Four statutes grant the Government authority to detain noncitizens who have been 12 placed in removal proceedings: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) (‘Section 1225(b)’), 1226(a) (‘Subsection 13 A’), 1226(c) (‘Subsection C’), and 1231(a) (‘Section 1231(a)’).” Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 14 525, 529 (9th Cir. 2023). “Subsection A is the default detention statute for noncitizens in 15 removal proceedings and applies to noncitizens ‘[e]xcept as provided in [Subsection C].’”2 16 Avilez, 69 F.4th at 529 (alterations in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). “[D]etention under 17 Subsection A is discretionary” and “provides for release on bond or conditional parole.” Avilez, 18 69 F.4th at 529. “When a person is apprehended under § 1226(a), an ICE officer makes the initial 19 custody determination,” and the noncitizen “will be released if he ‘demonstrate[s] to the 20 satisfaction of the officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and 21 that the alien is likely to appear for any future proceeding.’” Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 22 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8)). 23 “[A]n alien who ‘arrives in the United States,’ or ‘is present’ in this country but ‘has not 24 been admitted,’ is treated as ‘an applicant for admission.’” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 25 287 (2018) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1)). “Applicants for admission must ‘be inspected by 26 immigration officers’ to ensure that they may be admitted into the country consistent with U.S. 27 2 Subsection C, which is not at issue here, “provides for the detention of ‘criminal aliens’ and states that ‘[t]he Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who’ is deportable or inadmissible based on a qualifying, 1 immigration law.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3)). “[A]pplicants for 2 admission fall into one of two categories, those covered by § 1225(b)(1) and those covered by 3 § 1225(b)(2).” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287. “Both § 1225(b)(1) and § 1225(b)(2) authorize the 4 detention of certain aliens.” Id. 5 “Section 1225(b)(1) applies to aliens initially determined to be inadmissible due to fraud, 6 misrepresentation, or lack of valid documentation. Section 1225(b)(1) also applies to certain 7 other aliens designated by the Attorney General in his discretion.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287 8 (citations omitted). “Aliens covered by § 1225(b)(1) are normally ordered removed ‘without 9 further hearing or review’ pursuant to an expedited removal process.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. 10 § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i)). “But if a § 1225(b)(1) alien ‘indicates either an intention to apply for asylum 11 ... or a fear of persecution,’ then that alien is referred for an asylum interview.” Jennings, 583 12 U.S. at 287 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii)). “If an immigration officer determines after 13 that interview that the alien has a credible fear of persecution, ‘the alien shall be detained for 14 further consideration of the application for asylum.’” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287 (quoting 8 15 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii)). 16 Section 1225(b)(2)(A) provides that “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for 17 admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is 18 not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a 19 proceeding under section 1229a of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Thus, “[a]ll applicants 20 for admission who are not processed for expedited removal [pursuant to § 1225(b)(1)] are placed 21 in regular removal proceedings under § 1225(b)(2)(A). That process generally entails a hearing 22 before an immigration judge pursuant to § 1229a.” Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, 924 F.3d 23 503, 507 (9th Cir. 2019). 24 “Regardless of which of those two sections authorizes their detention, applicants for 25 admission may be temporarily released on parole ‘for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant 26 public benefit.’” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)) (citing 8 C.F.R. 27 §§ 212.5(b), 235.3 (2017)). “Such parole, however, ‘shall not be regarded as an admission of the 1 purpose of the parole has been served, ‘the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the 2 custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the 3 same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.’” Jennings, 583 4 U.S. at 288 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)). 5 B. Applicability of 8 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 DANIEL TELLEZ FUGA, Case No. 2:26-cv-00654-JLT-SAB-HC
11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO 12 v. DISMISS, GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECT 13 WARDEN, et al., RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH A BOND HEARING 14 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 1, 6) 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 citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection at an 21 unknown date and location. On July 13, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by local law enforcement 22 for an offense involving possession of a controlled substance. (ECF No. 6-1 at 2.1) The 23 prosecutor rejected the charge without a pre-trial diversion, and on August 23, 2025, Petitioner 24 was transferred to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. (Id. at 3.) 25 On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for 26 temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The Court denied the motion for TRO as 27 untimely. (ECF No. 4.) On April 1, 2026, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 6.) 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The Court finds that issuance of findings and recommendation is appropriate despite the 4 time for Petitioner to file a reply to Respondents’ response having not yet expired. 5 A. Statutory Framework 6 An intricate statutory scheme governs the detention of noncitizens during removal 7 proceedings and after a final removal order is issued. “Where an alien falls within this statutory 8 scheme can affect whether his detention is mandatory or discretionary, as well as the kind of 9 review process available to him if he wishes to contest the necessity of his detention.” Prieto- 10 Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). 11 “Four statutes grant the Government authority to detain noncitizens who have been 12 placed in removal proceedings: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) (‘Section 1225(b)’), 1226(a) (‘Subsection 13 A’), 1226(c) (‘Subsection C’), and 1231(a) (‘Section 1231(a)’).” Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 14 525, 529 (9th Cir. 2023). “Subsection A is the default detention statute for noncitizens in 15 removal proceedings and applies to noncitizens ‘[e]xcept as provided in [Subsection C].’”2 16 Avilez, 69 F.4th at 529 (alterations in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). “[D]etention under 17 Subsection A is discretionary” and “provides for release on bond or conditional parole.” Avilez, 18 69 F.4th at 529. “When a person is apprehended under § 1226(a), an ICE officer makes the initial 19 custody determination,” and the noncitizen “will be released if he ‘demonstrate[s] to the 20 satisfaction of the officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and 21 that the alien is likely to appear for any future proceeding.’” Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 22 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8)). 23 “[A]n alien who ‘arrives in the United States,’ or ‘is present’ in this country but ‘has not 24 been admitted,’ is treated as ‘an applicant for admission.’” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 25 287 (2018) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1)). “Applicants for admission must ‘be inspected by 26 immigration officers’ to ensure that they may be admitted into the country consistent with U.S. 27 2 Subsection C, which is not at issue here, “provides for the detention of ‘criminal aliens’ and states that ‘[t]he Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who’ is deportable or inadmissible based on a qualifying, 1 immigration law.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3)). “[A]pplicants for 2 admission fall into one of two categories, those covered by § 1225(b)(1) and those covered by 3 § 1225(b)(2).” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287. “Both § 1225(b)(1) and § 1225(b)(2) authorize the 4 detention of certain aliens.” Id. 5 “Section 1225(b)(1) applies to aliens initially determined to be inadmissible due to fraud, 6 misrepresentation, or lack of valid documentation. Section 1225(b)(1) also applies to certain 7 other aliens designated by the Attorney General in his discretion.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287 8 (citations omitted). “Aliens covered by § 1225(b)(1) are normally ordered removed ‘without 9 further hearing or review’ pursuant to an expedited removal process.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. 10 § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i)). “But if a § 1225(b)(1) alien ‘indicates either an intention to apply for asylum 11 ... or a fear of persecution,’ then that alien is referred for an asylum interview.” Jennings, 583 12 U.S. at 287 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii)). “If an immigration officer determines after 13 that interview that the alien has a credible fear of persecution, ‘the alien shall be detained for 14 further consideration of the application for asylum.’” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287 (quoting 8 15 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii)). 16 Section 1225(b)(2)(A) provides that “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for 17 admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is 18 not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a 19 proceeding under section 1229a of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Thus, “[a]ll applicants 20 for admission who are not processed for expedited removal [pursuant to § 1225(b)(1)] are placed 21 in regular removal proceedings under § 1225(b)(2)(A). That process generally entails a hearing 22 before an immigration judge pursuant to § 1229a.” Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, 924 F.3d 23 503, 507 (9th Cir. 2019). 24 “Regardless of which of those two sections authorizes their detention, applicants for 25 admission may be temporarily released on parole ‘for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant 26 public benefit.’” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)) (citing 8 C.F.R. 27 §§ 212.5(b), 235.3 (2017)). “Such parole, however, ‘shall not be regarded as an admission of the 1 purpose of the parole has been served, ‘the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the 2 custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the 3 same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.’” Jennings, 583 4 U.S. at 288 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)). 5 B. Applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) 6 In Count One of the petition, Petitioner asserts that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 7 § 1226(a). (ECF No. 1 at 9.) In the motion to dismiss, Respondents argue that Petitioner is “an 8 ‘applicant for admission’ who is subject to mandatory detention by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 9 1225(b).” (ECF No. 6 at 1.) 10 “Until [2025], the DHS has applied § 1226(a) and its discretionary release and review of 11 detention to the vast majority of noncitizens allegedly in this country without valid 12 documentation. This practice was codified by regulation.” Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV- 13 06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025). In its briefing in 14 Salcedo Aceros, “the Government acknowledge[d] that ‘until recently,’ it considered § 1226(a) 15 to be an available detention authority for noncitizens who might also be subject to § 1225.” Id. 16 (citation omitted). 17 On July 8, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) instituted a notice titled “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for 18 Admission.” [Dkt. No. 5-2 at 45–46, “DHS Guidance Notice” or “DHS Policy”]. The Notice communicated DHS’s choice, in coordination with the Department of 19 Justice (“DOJ”) to “revisit[ ] its legal position on detention and release authorities,” determining that Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 20 (“INA”) would serve as the applicable immigration detention authority rather than Section 236 for all “applicants for admission.” [Id.]. In other words, the change in 21 policy requires ICE employees to consider anyone arrested in the United States and charged with being inadmissible as an “applicant for admission” under 8 22 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Under § 1225(b)(2)(A), “applicants for admission” are subject to mandatory detention for proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and not 23 entitled to the due process protections found within § 1226(a). 24 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 25 3713987, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). 26 “District courts around the country have rejected the government’s position that section 27 1225(b)(2) permits it to pursue mandatory detention against noncitizens who have not been 1 F. Supp. 3d 919, 936 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (citing Salcedo Aceros, 2025 WL 2637503, at *8 2 (collecting cases)). “Here in the Eastern District of California, recent decisions have largely 3 rejected the government’s interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2) as applicable to all ‘applicants for 4 admission.’” Valencia v. Chestnut, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1067 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (collecting 5 cases). 6 The Court recommends finding that Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention 7 under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) based on the reasoning in Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00007-JLT- 8 SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026), which found that “a non-citizen who has 9 resided in this country for an extended period likely falls within the discretionary detention 10 authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than the mandatory detention authority under 8 U.S.C. 11 § 1225.” Id. at *2 (citing E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, No. 1:25-CV-01906-DJC-JDP, 2025 WL 12 3707140, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025)).3 Further, the Court recommends Petitioner “must be 13 given a prompt bond hearing under the framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or released.” Huerta v. 14 Bondi, No. 1:25-CV-00941 JLT HBK (HC), 2026 WL 366709, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2026). 15 III. 16 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 17 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 18 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED on Count One. 19 2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) be DENIED. 20 3. Respondents be directed to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before 21 an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or alternatively, release Petitioner 22 under reasonable conditions of supervision. 23 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 24 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 25 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 26 FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 27 1 | written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any 2 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 3 | Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days 4 | after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate 5 | Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 6 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 7 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 8 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 11 | Dated: _ April 8, 2026 STANLEY A. BOONE 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28