Olvin Rene Yanez Velasquez v. Warden, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLVIN RENE YANEZ VELASQUEZ (A- Case No. 1:26-cv-1781-DJC-JDP Number: 221-489-928), 12 Petitioner, 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 WARDEN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Olvin Rene Yanez Velasquez entered the United States in 2001 and was 19 detained by ICE in 2026. Petitioner, proceeding with counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. 21 For the following reasons, I recommend that the petition be granted and petitioner be immediately 22 released. 23 Background 24 Petitioner entered the United States “without inspection” in 2001. ECF No. 1 at 3. There 25 is no allegation or evidence that, prior to his current detention, petitioner had any involvement 26 with immigration authorities. Petitioner alleges that he does not have a criminal record, and 27 respondents do not contest this allegation or provide any evidence to the contrary. See ECF No. 2 28 at 4; ECF No. 7. 1 On or about February 12, 2026, petitioner was detained by ICE in Baltimore, Maryland. 2 ECF No. 1 at 4. There is no allegation or evidence that petitioner has received a bond hearing; on 3 the contrary, the government asserts that “petitioner is subject to mandatory detention and thus 4 ineligible for a bond hearing.” See ECF No. 7 at 2. 5 Procedural History 6 On March 5, 2026, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for 7 temporary restraining order. ECF No. 1. On March 8, 2026, respondents filed a combined 8 answer to the petition and response to the motion for temporary restraining order. ECF No. 7. 9 Petitioner filed a reply two days thereafter. ECF No. 8. On March 11, 2026, the court denied 10 petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order because petitioner “has provided insufficient 11 factual information” and “fails to cite any authority under which he is entitled to relief.” ECF No. 12 9. The court referred the matter to me. Id. 13 Legal Standard 14 A federal court may grant habeas relief when a petitioner shows that his custody violates 15 federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), (c)(3), 2254(a); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 374-75 16 (2000). “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of 17 that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 18 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A writ of habeas corpus may be granted to a 19 petitioner who demonstrates that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 20 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Historically, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of 21 reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have 22 been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). A district court’s habeas jurisdiction 23 includes challenges to immigration detention. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). 24 Analysis 25 At the outset, I agree with the court that the petition is short on factual allegations and its 26 claims lack detail. See ECF No. 9. Notably, the filings in this case are in some ways similar to 27 those in another action in this district involving petitioner’s counsel. In Paute Plaza v. Warden, 28 the court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. No. 1:26-cv-1573-JLT-SKO, 2026 WL 1 743364, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026). The petition in Paute Plaza is nearly identical to the 2 petition here; for example, both petitions are silent as to the provision of a bond hearing or what 3 section of the Immigration and Nationality Act was violated by ongoing detention. Compare 4 ECF No. 1 with No. 1:26-cv-01573-JLT-SKO, ECF No. 1. The reply briefs in both cases contain 5 the same three paragraphs. Compare ECF No. 8 with No. 1:26-cv-01573-JLT-SKO, ECF No. 8. 6 More importantly, the opposition briefs are substantially similar in that the government asserts in 7 each instance that detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).1 Compare ECF No. 7 8 with No. 1:26-cv-01573-JLT-SKO, ECF No. 7. 9 The court in Paute Plaza, focusing on the government’s opposition, found that the 10 respondents failed to show that the petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under section 11 1225(b)(2). 2026 WL 743364, at *1. Similarly, I find that the petition here is sufficient to 12 proceed to an analysis of the merits. Respondents, as noted, argue that petitioner’s detention is 13 mandatory under section 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 7 at 1-2. I address petitioner’s statutory claim 14 below.2 See ECF No. 1 at 5. 15 Under section 1225(b)(2)(A), applicants “seeking admission” to the United States are 16 subject to mandatory detention: “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the 17 examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and 18 beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained . . . .” 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1225(b)(2)(A). Critically, no bond hearing is provided for a noncitizen detained under this 20 section. Id. By contrast, “[u]nder § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, a detainee may 21 request a bond hearing before an [immigration judge] at any time before a removal order becomes 22 final.” Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 23 24 1 In neither action did respondents argue that the petition lacked sufficient factual 25 allegations or legal claims. See ECF No. 7; No. 1:26-cv-01573-JLT-SKO, ECF No. 7 2 Because the petition should be granted on the statutory claim alone, I find it unnecessary 26 to address petitioner’s other claim alleging a violation of the Fifth Amendment. See ECF No. 1 at 27 5. It bears mention, however, that petitioner would not succeed on this claim because there is no evidence or allegation that petitioner was previously released on his own recognizance such that 28 he had a protected liberty interest at the time he was detained by ICE. 1 For decades, the government applied section 1226(a)—and not section 1225(b)(2)(A)—to 2 noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States. See id. at 1196 (“The provision at 3 issue in this case, 8 U.S.C. § 1226, provides the general process for arresting and detaining aliens 4 who are present in the United States and eligible for removal.”). In July 2025, however, the 5 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) revisited its legal position and now maintains that 6 “all applicants for admission within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1225(a) are subject to mandatory 7 detention under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b).” See ECF No. 7 at 1 n.1. Respondent urges the court to follow 8 suit and find that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 1225(b)(2). Id. at 1-2. Id. 9 This issue is one of statutory interpretation, and so I begin with the plain text of the 10 Immigration and Nationality Act. See United States v. Lillard, 935 F.3d 827, 833-34 (9th Cir. 11 2019). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) provides that, “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for 12 admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not 13 clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained.” 8 U.S.C. 14 § 1225(b)(2)(A). There is only one exception to mandatory detention: a noncitizen may be 15 paroled into the United States “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” 16 under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288 (2018). 17 While the text of section 1225(b)(2)(A) limits its reach to applicants “seeking admission,” 18 section 1226(a) does not include the same qualifying language. Section 1226(a) provides that, for 19 a noncitizen who is arrested and detained “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General,” the 20 Attorney General (1) “may continue to detain” the arrested noncitizen, (2) “may release” the 21 noncitizen on “bond,” or (3) “may release” the noncitizen on “conditional parole.”3 8 U.S.C. 22 §§ 1226(a)(1)-(2). 23 The government urges the court to read section 1225(b)(2)(A) as using the terms 24 “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission” interchangeably. See ECF No. 7 at 1-2. 25 According to the government, all noncitizens who have not been admitted to the United States— 26

27 3 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 i.e., “applicants for admission”—are necessarily “seeking admission” for purposes of section 2 1225(b)(2)(A). Id. Thus, the government contends, section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens 3 who are “applicants for admission.” Id. 4 I find that the government’s interpretation violates the rule against surplusage in three 5 ways. First, for section 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention to apply, “a noncitizen must (1) be 6 an applicant for admission, (2) be ‘seeking admission’, and (3) be ‘not clearly and beyond a doubt 7 entitled to be admitted.’” J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01309-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 2938808, 8 *11 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025). If, as the government argues, all “applicants for admissions” were 9 also individuals “seeking admission,” the phrase “seeking admission” would be unnecessary. The 10 government’s reading, therefore, runs contrary to the rule against surplusage. See United States, 11 ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., Inc., 599 U.S. 419, 432 (2023) (“[E]very clause and word 12 of a statute should have meaning.”); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) (“[N]o clause, 13 sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.”). 14 Second, the government’s reading cannot be squared with the text of section 1226. Were 15 it possible to interpret section 1225(b)(2)(A) in the manner favored by the government, section 16 1226(a)’s requirement that noncitizens be afforded bond hearings—arguably the section’s 17 centerpiece—would serve no purpose because the government would be allowed to detain all 18 “applicants for admission” under section 1225(b)(2)(A). Further, as noted, under section 1226(c), 19 Congress mandated the detention of certain categories of noncitizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). If, as 20 the government now contends, section 1225(b)(2)(A) can be applied to all noncitizens who are 21 inadmissible, section 1226(c) would also be superfluous. 22 Third, the Laken Riley Act (“LRA”)—passed in January 2025—would also be rendered 23 superfluous. The LRA amended section 1226(c) to add new categories of mandatory detention. 24 See Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02180-DMS-MMP, 2025 WL 2549431, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 25 2025). Under the government’s theory of section 1225(b)(2)(A), the LRA would be unnecessary; 26 if mandatory detention for all unauthorized noncitizens were already permitted—and, in fact, 27 required—by section 1225(b)(2)(A), the amendment would be surplusage. “When Congress acts 28 to amend a statute, [courts] presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect.” 1 Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 397 (1995). 2 Respondent’s theory, essentially, is that both sections 1226(a) and 1226(c) have been 3 taken out of commission, not by any new law or act of Congress, but by a shift in executive 4 branch policy. This interpretation collides squarely with the rule against surplusage. See Marx v. 5 Gen. Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 386 (2013) (“[T]he canon against surplusage is strongest 6 when an interpretation would render superfluous another part of the same statutory scheme.”). 7 I also find that the government’s interpretation runs contrary to the DHS’s longstanding 8 practice prior to July 2025. As noted, the government previously interpreted these provisions in 9 the manner argued by petitioner. Prior agency practice, though not dispositive, may inform this 10 court’s determination of law. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 386 (2024) 11 (“[T]he longstanding practice of the government—like any other interpretive aid—can inform a 12 court’s determination of what the law is.”). Other courts have emphasized the persuasive value of 13 the DHS’s “longstanding agency practice.” See Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 14 1259 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (“Congress enacted the LRA against the backdrop of longstanding 15 agency practice applying Section 1226(a) to inadmissible noncitizens already residing in the 16 country.”). 17 Finally, I note that arguments substantially similar to those made by the government here 18 have been rejected by a large majority of district courts nationwide. See Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. 19 Supp. 3d 1104, 1112 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (collecting cases). The government’s argument also runs 20 contrary to Jennings, which held that section 1225(b) “applies primarily to aliens seeking entry 21 into the United States,” whereas sections 1226(a) and (c) “authorize[] the Government to detain 22 certain aliens already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings . . . .” 583 U.S. 23 at 289, 297. While the government’s interpretation was endorsed by the Board of Immigration 24 Appeals in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), the persuasive power of an 25 agency ruling is limited. See Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 400. 26 Accordingly, because petitioner was detained in the interior of the United States, I find 27 that his detention is governed by section 1226(a) and not, as respondent argues, by section 28 1225(b). Given this finding, I must determine whether the appropriate relief is release or a bond 1 hearing. Petitioner requests immediate release. ECF No. 1 at 5. Respondent does not address 2 this issue. See ECF No. 7. 3 The Supreme Court has recognized that “[h]abeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful 4 executive detention” and the “typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release.” Munaf v. 5 Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008); see also Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 6 103, 107 (2020) (“Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful 7 detention.”). Moreover, where the government has erroneously applied section 1225(b) to a 8 petitioner, courts have ordered immediate release. See, e.g., Morillo v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv- 9 1533-DJC-AC, 2025 WL 3190899, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2025). In Feng v. Lyons, the court 10 held that a delay “in providing the statutorily mandated bond hearing violates [a petitioner’s] due 11 process rights” and found that the “[p]rovision of a bond hearing after months of detention 12 without the opportunity to seek release on bond cannot be said to satisfy due process where that 13 bond hearing is a matter of statutory right.” No. 1:26-cv-0235-DJC-SCR, 2026 WL 472635, at *1 14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2026) (citations omitted). 15 Here, I find that the “typical remedy” of release is appropriate because the government has 16 not provided a lawful justification for petitioner’s detention. See Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693. 17 Petitioner’s due process rights have been violated such that the provision of a bond hearing is 18 constitutionally insufficient. See Feng, 2026 WL 472635, at *1. Moreover, “there is no 19 indication before the Court of prima facie evidence that [p]etitioner could be found to be a risk of 20 flight or danger to the community.” See id. Accordingly, “the government’s interest in detaining 21 [petitioner] without proper process is slight.” See J.S.H.M., 2025 WL 2938808, at *16. Indeed, 22 “the only potential injury that the government faces is a short delay in detaining [petitioner] if it 23 ultimately demonstrates to a neutral decisionmaker that [his] detention is necessary to prevent 24 flight or danger to the community.” See Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 941 25 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 26 Conclusion 27 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 28 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be GRANTED. ] 2. Respondents be ordered to immediately release petitioner (A-Number: 221-489-928) 2 | from their custody. Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on petitioner, unless 3 | that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. Ifthe government 4 | seeks to re-detain petitioner, it must provide no less than seven days’ notice to petitioner and must 5 | hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and its 6 | implementing regulations, at which petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. This 7 | Order does not address the circumstances in which respondents may detain petitioner in the event 8 | petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal. 9 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to serve California City Detention Facility with a copy 10 | of this Order. 11 4. The Clerk of Court be further directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this 12 || case. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven days of 15 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 16 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 17 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 18 | within seven days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 19 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 20 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 21 | 1991). 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ April 9, 2026 _———— 25 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 28