Diego de Jesus Avelar Aguilar v. James Janecka, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISON 11 12 DIEGO DE JESUS AVELAR No. 5:26-cv-00602-SSS-BFM AGUILAR, 13 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING 14 PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. 15 HABEAS CORPUS JAMES JANECKA, et al., 16 Respondents. 17

19 Before the Court is Petitioner Diego de Jesus Avelar Aguilar’s Petition 20 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF 1.) Respondents filed their Answer to the 21 Petition. (ECF 7.) For the following reasons, the Court grants the Petition. 22 Petitioner is an El Salvadorian foreign national who has been in 23 immigration detention since December 23, 2025. (ECF 1 ¶ 1.) Petitioner is 24 currently detained at the Adelanto Detention Facility in Adelanto, California, 25 is in removal proceedings, and was denied the opportunity to have a bond 26 hearing and be released on bond. (ECF 1 ¶¶ 3, 30-31.) 27 On January 26, 2026, Petitioner filed a counseled petition for writ of 28 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration 1 detention, or alternatively, a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 2 seven days. (ECF 1 at 24-25.) Petitioner alleges that his continued detention 3 violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. (ECF 1 ¶¶ 93-96.) 4 Respondents concede that Petitioner appears to be a member of the Bond 5 Eligible Class certified by this Court in Maldonado Bautista and that 6 Petitioner’s claims regarding entitlement to a bond hearing are subject to the 7 Maldonado Bautista judgment. (ECF 7 at 2.) In light of Respondents’ response, 8 the Court invited Petitioner to file a status report on whether relief under 9 Maldonado Bautista would resolve his claims. (ECF 8.) Petitioner’s response 10 clarified that he is seeking a bond hearing under Maldonado Bautista only. 11 (ECF 9.) 12 The troubling circumstances surrounding the refusal by executive 13 agencies to provide those in the Bond Eligible Class with bond hearings are 14 familiar to this Court. Indeed, this Court has already found DHS’s policy of 15 denying bond hearings to individuals like Petitioner contrary to the INA. See Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 16 3713987, at *8-*22 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025); see also Huerta Estrada et al. v. 17 Noem et al., No. 5:25-CV-03271-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3691473, at *3–4 (C.D. Cal. 18 Dec. 10, 2025) (granting petitioner’s TRO based upon DHS withholding 19 protections that petitioners “would have otherwise been afforded under § 20 1226(a).”); Salgado Valenzuela v. Semaia, 5:25-cv-02853-SSS-RAO (C.D. Cal. 21 Nov. 25, 2025) (granting a petitioner’s TRO on the same issue). 22 As Respondents concede that Petitioner is a class member entitled to a 23 bond hearing under the reasoning of Maldonado Bautista, the Court grants 24 the petition for the reasons stated in the orders in that case. See Maldonado 25 Bautista, 2025 WL 3713987, at *8-*22. 26 Accordingly, it is ORDERED THAT: 27 (1) The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 1) is granted as to 28 1 (2) Respondents are enjoined from continuing to detain Petitioner unless 2 he is provided with individualized bond hearings before an 3 immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days of the 4 date of this Order. ! 5 (3) The remaining claims are dismissed as moot in light of the relief 6 eranted on Count Three, considerin Petitioner's su lemental 7 response which clarifies that the relief sought is a bond hearing. 8 9 || DATED: March 2, 2026 10 HONORABLE SU INE 8. SYKES 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 Consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent, the Government bears the 20 || burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence whether Petitioner poses 51 || 2 flight risk or danger to the public. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1200 (9th Cir. 2022); see also Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785-86 22 |! (9th Cir. 2024) (“[a]t the outset of its decision, the BIA properly noted that the 54 government bore the burden to established by clear and convincing evidence that [detainee] 1s a danger to the community’), id. at 786 (reiterating that 24 || Singh found that “due process requires ... the government to prove dangerousness or risk of flight by clear and convincing evidence”). See also Al- 25 I Sadeai v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enft, 540 F. Supp. 3d 983, 990-91 (S.D. 26 || Cal. 2021) (discussing Ninth Circuit precedent establishing the Government’s burden and finding the IJ’s placement of the burden of proof on detainee 27 || violated the Due Process Clause). Therefore, the Court requires that the 2g || Immigration Judge properly place the burden of proof on Respondents.

”