Javier Juarez Vargas v. Robert Lynch, etc., et al.

Opinion

PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

JAVIER JUAREZ VARGAS, ) ) CASE NO. 1:26CV1098 Petitioner, ) ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON v. ) ) ROBERT LYNCH, etc., et al., ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION ) AND ORDER Respondents. ) [Resolving ECF No 3]

Pending is Petitioner Javier Juarez Vargas’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1), filed on May 12, 2026. Petitioner is currently detained at the Geauga County Jail in Chardon, Ohio, which is located within the Northern District of Ohio. He challenges his designation as an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Petitioner moves the Court to order his release from detention because his detention without the possibility of a bond hearing is unconstitutional. He contends that detention is properly grounded in 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which — unlike § 1225 — generally authorizes immigration judges to release aliens on bond. The Court has been advised, having reviewed the record, the Petition (ECF No. 1), Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 3), Respondents’ Response to the Petition (ECF No. 4), and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court conditionally grants the Petition. In Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, --- F Ath ----, Nos. 25-1965/1969/1978/1982, 2026 WL 1283891 (6th Cir. May 11, 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

(1:26CV1098) recently found that an “‘applicant for admission’ is not necessarily ‘seeking admission.’” Therefore, an “applicant for admission” is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Jd. at *11. Thus, pursuant to Lopez-Campos, the parties agree Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to a bond hearing under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at *13. Consistent with the relief affirmed in Lopez-Campos, Respondents state the Court should order that an immigration judge conduct a bond hearing under § 1226(a),' or that Respondents immediately release Petitioner. The relief affirmed in Lopez-Campos, however, was that the bond hearing take place within seven days, but Respondents request that the Court order the bond hearing to take place within 10 days. See ECF No. 4 at PagelID #: 111. For the reasons discussed above, the Court Orders Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 10 business days of the date of the Court’s Memorandum of Opinion and Order or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. The Court also Orders Respondents to file a status report within 14 business days of the date of the Court’s Memorandum of Opinion and Order to certify compliance with this Order. If a bond hearing is held, the status report shall inform the Court when the hearing occurred, if bond

' On May 13, 2026, Petitioner requested a bond hearing in the Immigration Court. See Respondent’s Request for Bond Hearing (ECF No. 4-1). Should that requested hearing take place, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus would be moot. See Ailor v. City of Maynardville, 368 F.3d 587, 596 (6th Cir. 2004) (case becomes moot and is subject to dismissal when an event occurs subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit which deprives a court of the ability to provide meaningful relief).

(1:26CV1098) was granted or denied, and if bond was denied, the reasons for the denial. Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 3) is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. May 15, 2026 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Date Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge