Merlyn Najarro-Ortega v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MERLYN NAJARRO-ORTEGA (A- Case No. 1:26-cv-1994-DC-JDP Number: 221-489-401), 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER; FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY 15 DETENTION FACILITY, 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner Merlyn Najarro-Ortega entered the United States in 2023 and was detained by 19 ICE in 2026. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 Respondent moves to dismiss. For the following reasons, I recommend that respondent’s motion 21 be denied, the petition be granted, and petitioner be immediately released. 22 Background 23 Petitioner entered the United States in September 2023.1 ECF No. 1 at 2. There is no 24 allegation or evidence indicating that, between September 2023 and her detention, petitioner was 25 contacted by immigration officials, or that she applied for asylum. Similarly, there is no 26 1 Petitioner alleges that she was previously deported in 2022. ECF No. 1 at 2. 27 Respondent does not address this allegation, and neither party presents any argument that the court should consider this allegation in its analysis of the issues presented. See ECF No. 7. 28 Accordingly, I do not address this allegation. 1 allegation or evidence that petitioner has any criminal history. 2 In January 2026, petitioner was detained by ICE in Maryland. ECF No. 7-1 at 1. There is 3 no allegation or evidence that petitioner has received a bond hearing; on the contrary, respondent 4 asserts that petitioner “is subject to mandatory detention and thus ineligible for a bond hearing.” 5 See ECF No. 7 at 2. 6 Procedural History 7 On March 12, 2026, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. On 8 April 8, 2026, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. ECF No. 7. While petitioner has 9 not filed an opposition, it bears consideration that petitioner is representing herself from custody. 10 Under these circumstances, I do not construe petitioner’s failure to file a timely opposition as a 11 non-opposition. See Local Rule 230(c). Accordingly, the petition and motion to dismiss are 12 submitted such that I may issue findings and recommendations.2 See ECF No. 6 at 2; Local Rule 13 302(c)(17). 14 Legal Standard 15 A federal court may grant habeas relief when a petitioner shows that his custody violates 16 federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), (c)(3), 2254(a); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 374-75 17 (2000). “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of 18 that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 19 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A writ of habeas corpus may be granted to a 20 petitioner who demonstrates that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 21 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Historically, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of 22 reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have 23 been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). A district court’s habeas jurisdiction 24 includes challenges to immigration detention. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). 25 26 27 2 Petitioner also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 2. In light of my 28 recommendation that the case be closed, her motion will be denied as moot. 1 Analysis 2 Respondent argues that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 7 at 1-2. I address this claim below.3 4 Under section 1225(b)(2)(A), applicants “seeking admission” to the United States are 5 subject to mandatory detention: “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the 6 examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and 7 beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained . . . .” 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1225(b)(2)(A). Critically, no bond hearing is provided for a noncitizen detained under this 9 section. Id. By contrast, “[u]nder § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, a detainee may 10 request a bond hearing before an [immigration judge] at any time before a removal order becomes 11 final.” Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 12 For decades, the government applied section 1226(a)—and not section 1225(b)(2)(A)—to 13 noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States. See id. at 1196 (“The provision at 14 issue in this case, 8 U.S.C. § 1226, provides the general process for arresting and detaining aliens 15 who are present in the United States and eligible for removal.”). In July 2025, however, the 16 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) revisited its legal position and now maintains that 17 “all applicants for admission within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1225(a) are subject to mandatory 18 detention under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b).” See ECF No. 7 at 1 n.1. Respondent urges the court to follow 19 suit and find that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention. Id. at 1-2. 20 This issue is one of statutory interpretation, and so I begin with the plain text of the 21 Immigration and Nationality Act. See United States v. Lillard, 935 F.3d 827, 833-34 (9th Cir. 22 2019). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) provides that, “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for 23 admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not 24 clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained.” 8 U.S.C.

25 3 As an initial matter, respondent requests that the court “hold the matter in abeyance pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of” Rodriguez v. Bostock, 802 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (W.D. 26 Wash. 2025). See ECF No. 7 at 2. While the Court of Appeals’ decision might prove relevant to 27 the statutory issue presented in this action, a somewhat unsettled legal landscape does not justify an indefinite stay. Moreover, because respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, there is no 28 apparent prejudice to resolving this action. Accordingly, respondent’s request is denied. 1 § 1225(b)(2)(A). There is only one exception to mandatory detention: a noncitizen may be 2 paroled into the United States “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” 3 under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288 (2018). 4 While the text of section 1225(b)(2)(A) limits its reach to applicants “seeking admission,” 5 section 1226(a) does not include the same qualifying language. Section 1226(a) provides that, for 6 a noncitizen who is arrested and detained “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General,” the 7 Attorney General (1) “may continue to detain” the arrested noncitizen, (2) “may release” the 8 noncitizen on “bond,” or (3) “may release” the noncitizen on “conditional parole.”4 8 U.S.C. 9 §§ 1226(a)(1)-(2). 10 The government urges the court to read section 1225(b)(2)(A) as using the terms 11 “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission” interchangeably. See ECF No. 7 at 2. 12 According to the government, all noncitizens who have not been admitted to the United States— 13 i.e., “applicants for admission”—are necessarily “seeking admission” for purposes of section 14 1225(b)(2)(A). Id. Thus, the government contends, section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens 15 who are “applicants for admission.” Id. 16 I find that the government’s interpretation violates the rule against surplusage in three 17 ways. First, for section 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention to apply, “a noncitizen must (1) be 18 an applicant for admission, (2) be ‘seeking admission’, and (3) be ‘not clearly and beyond a doubt 19 entitled to be admitted.’” J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01309-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 2938808, 20 *11 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025). If, as the government argues, all “applicants for admissions” were 21 also individuals “seeking admission,” the phrase “seeking admission” would be unnecessary. The 22 government’s reading, therefore, runs contrary to the rule against surplusage. See United States, 23 ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., Inc., 599 U.S. 419, 432 (2023) (“[E]very clause and word 24 of a statute should have meaning.”); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) (“[N]o clause, 25 sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.”). 26

27 4 Section 1226(c) mandates detention of noncitizens falling into “one of several enumerated categories involving criminal offenses and terrorist activities.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 28 289. There is no argument or evidence suggesting that this section applies to petitioner. 1 Second, the government’s reading cannot be squared with the text of section 1226. Were 2 it possible to interpret section 1225(b)(2)(A) in the manner favored by the government, section 3 1226(a)’s requirement that noncitizens be afforded bond hearings—arguably the section’s 4 centerpiece—would serve no purpose because the government would be allowed to detain all 5 “applicants for admission” under section 1225(b)(2)(A). Further, as noted, under section 1226(c), 6 Congress mandated the detention of certain categories of noncitizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). If, as 7 the government now contends, section 1225(b)(2)(A) can be applied to all noncitizens who are 8 inadmissible, section 1226(c) would also be superfluous. 9 Third, the Laken Riley Act (“LRA”)—passed in January 2025—would also be rendered 10 superfluous. The LRA amended section 1226(c) to add new categories of mandatory detention. 11 See Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02180-DMS-MMP, 2025 WL 2549431, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 12 2025). Under the government’s theory of section 1225(b)(2)(A), the LRA would be unnecessary; 13 if mandatory detention for all unauthorized noncitizens were already permitted—and, in fact, 14 required—by section 1225(b)(2)(A), the amendment would be surplusage. “When Congress acts 15 to amend a statute, [courts] presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect.” 16 Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995). 17 Respondent’s theory, essentially, is that both sections 1226(a) and 1226(c) have been 18 taken out of commission, not by any new law or act of Congress, but by a shift in executive 19 branch policy. This interpretation collides squarely with the rule against surplusage. See Marx v. 20 Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 386 (2013) (“[T]he canon against surplusage is strongest 21 when an interpretation would render superfluous another part of the same statutory scheme.”). 22 I also find that the government’s interpretation runs contrary to the DHS’s longstanding 23 practice prior to July 2025. As noted, the government previously interpreted these provisions in 24 the manner argued by petitioner. Prior agency practice, though not dispositive, may inform this 25 court’s determination of law. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 386 (2024) 26 (“[T]he longstanding practice of the government—like any other interpretive aid—can inform a 27 court’s determination of what the law is.”). Other courts have emphasized the persuasive value of 28 the DHS’s “longstanding agency practice.” See Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1 1259 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (“Congress enacted the LRA against the backdrop of longstanding 2 agency practice applying Section 1226(a) to inadmissible noncitizens already residing in the 3 country.”). 4 Finally, I note that arguments substantially similar to those made by the government here 5 have been rejected by a large majority of district courts nationwide. See, e.g., Lepe v. Andrews, 6 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104, 1112 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (collecting cases). The government’s argument also 7 runs contrary to Jennings, which held that section 1225(b) “applies primarily to aliens seeking 8 entry into the United States,” whereas sections 1226(a) and (c) “authorize[] the Government to 9 detain certain aliens already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings . . . .” 10 583 U.S. at 289, 297. While the government’s interpretation was endorsed by the Board of 11 Immigration Appeals in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), the persuasive 12 power of an agency ruling is limited. See Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 400. 13 Accordingly, because petitioner was detained in the interior of the United States, I find 14 that her detention is governed by section 1226(a) and not, as respondent argues, by section 15 1225(b). Given this finding, I must determine whether the appropriate relief is release or a bond 16 hearing. Petitioner requests immediate release. ECF No. 1 at 19. Respondent does not address 17 this issue. See ECF No. 7. 18 The Supreme Court has recognized that “[h]abeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful 19 executive detention” and the “typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” Munaf v. 20 Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008); see also Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 21 103, 107 (2020) (“Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful 22 detention.”). Moreover, where the government has erroneously applied section 1225(b) to a 23 petitioner, courts have ordered immediate release. See, e.g., Morillo v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv- 24 1533-DJC-AC, 2025 WL 3190899, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2025). In Feng v. Lyons, the court 25 held that a delay “in providing the statutorily mandated bond hearing violates [a petitioner’s] due 26 process rights” and found that the “[p]rovision of a bond hearing after months of detention 27 without the opportunity to seek release on bond cannot be said to satisfy due process where that 28 bond hearing is a matter of statutory right.” No. 1:26-cv-0235-DJC-SCR, 2026 WL 472635, at *1 1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2026) (citations omitted). 2 Here, I find that the “typical remedy” of release is appropriate because the government has 3 not provided a lawful justification for petitioner’s detention and has deprived her of her statutory 4 right to a bond hearing. See Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693. As such, petitioner’s due process rights 5 have been violated such that the provision of a bond hearing is a constitutionally insufficient 6 remedy. See Feng, 2026 WL 472635, at *1. Moreover, there is no evidence that petitioner has 7 any criminal history, and respondent does not argue that she is a danger to the community or a 8 flight risk. See ECF No. 7. 9 Conclusion 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for the appointment of 11 counsel, ECF No. 2, is DENIED as moot. 12 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be GRANTED. 14 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, be DENIED. 15 3. Respondent be ordered to immediately release petitioner (A-Number: 221-489-401) 16 from their custody. Respondent shall not impose any additional restrictions on petitioner, unless 17 that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. If the government 18 seeks to re-detain petitioner, it must provide no less than seven days’ notice to petitioner and must 19 hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and its 20 implementing regulations, at which petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. This 21 order does not address the circumstances in which respondent may detain petitioner in the event 22 petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal. 23 4. The Clerk of Court be directed to serve California City Detention Facility with a copy 24 of this order. 25 5. The Clerk of Court be further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 26 case. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days of 1 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 2 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 3 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 4 | within seven days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 6 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 7 | 1991). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 27, 2026 aw—— 1] JEREMY D. PETERSON 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28